I HAVE been longer in your Debt than I inten­ded, when I last engaged my Credit to you. I hope now to give you satisfaction in full; but you must not expect Interest to make the payment swell, because the thing I am accountable to you for is so Trite and worn, that I think it a kindness to you to make as short payment as is possible, because 'twill save you the trouble of Examining a world of [Page 2] small quotations, which is worse than the telling of odd and broken Mony. I promised you an account of the Doctrine of the Holy Sacrament; which the Church of Rome hath turned at last into the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation; By which they mean, that upon the Priests Consecration of the Bread and Wine, the Substance of them is turn'd into Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood, nothing remaining but the Species, and Properties of the Elements; that is, the Smell, the Taste, &c.

This absurd Doctrine being so repugnant to Scrip­ture, to Reason, and to the very Senses of Mankind, their main business is to delude poor People into an Opinion, that it was the sense of the Primitive Churches of Christ. We are desirous to come to a fair Tryal of this matter, and that I may do my part towards it, I shall endeavour to bring it to a very short issue by this Method.

1. I shall shew you the Faith of the Ancient Churches, from a long Controversie they had with those Hereticks, the Apollinarians and Eutychians: Which being undeniable and publick matter of Fact, will clear up the sense of the Ancients far better than single, broken passages out of the Fathers, which Men of parts know how to interpret to their own advan­tage.

2. I shall shew you when and how the sense of the Ancient Church came to be alter'd, what Progress that alteration made, and what strong opposition it met with for several Ages after it began. And by this plain Historical Account, you will easily discern what an Innovation the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is.

3. And then I shall give a Summary Answer to those [Page 3] things which the Modern Romanists do urge out of the Fathers, by shewing you the Genuine meaning of them, which they by wresting, or by not understand­ing them rightly, have used to deceive the world with false Notions.

I. As for the Faith of the Ancient Churches it will soon appear, if you do but observe this One thing, and bear it carefully in your mind. About the year of Christ, 370. or a little before, Apollinarius Bishop of Laodicea, had spread about this Heretical Opinion, that the humanity of Christ was turned and swallowed up into the Deity? so that tho his two Natures were di­stinct before the Union, yet by and upon the Union, they became one Nature, his humane part being con­verted or Transubstantiated into the Divine, the Pro­perties only and appearance of Humane Body remain­ing. This indeed was not all his Heresie, for he assert­ed too, that Christ took a Body without a Rational Soul, the Deity supplying the place of it; and seve­ral other strange Opinions he held, to the great di­sturbance of the Church. But it is too notorious to need any proof, that this was part of Apollinarius his Heresie, that upon the Union of Christs two Natures, his Manhood was changed into his Divinity, saving only the Properties of it; so that, he was forced to yield, that the Deity was Circumcised, and suffered upon the Cross, in the appearance, or (if you will have it in the Language of the Romanists) under the Species of Humane Flesh.

Within the compass of Twenty Years, Apollinarius his Heresie was condemned by Three Councils, at A­lexandria, at Rome, and at Constantinople. But about Sixty Seven years after, I mean Anno 448. it was re­vived [Page 4] by Eutyches, a Presbyter at Constantinople whose positive Opinion was, that the two Natures of Christ being United, the substance of the one utterly ceased, his Humanity being quite converted into his Divinity, so that nothing was left of his Humane Na­ture, but the Qualities and Accidents.

This Heresie, begun by Apollinarius, and promoted by Eutyches, lasted a long time; and 'tis very well worth your Observation, how nearly it resembles the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Sacrament. For as our Adversaries hold, that the Substance of Bread and Wine is upon Consecration turned into the very Substance of Christ's Flesh and Blood, nothing of them remaining but the Accidents; so the Apolli­narians and Eutychians held, that the Substance of Christ's Humane Nature was, upon its Union, turned into the Substance of his Divinity, nothing of his Hu­manity remaining but the Qualities and Properties. As these hold, that the very Substance of Christ's Body and Blood is received under the Species of Bread and Wine; so those Hereticks held, that the very Deity Vide Histor. Council Chal­ced. in init. & Leonis ep. 17. ad Maxim. part 3. istius Concilii. of Christ was Born, and did Grow, Suffer, Dye and Rise again under the Species of Humane Flesh: Or, briefly, that Christ appeared not in the Truth or Sub­stance of Humane Nature, but only in the outward Form and Figure of a Man; his Humanity being tran­substantiated as they presumed into his Divinity, all but the Idea of it.

Now among many Arguments which the Ancients used against those Hereticks, some of the Greatest Men in the Church drew One Argument from the Do­ctrine of the Sacrament; and made use of Our prin­ciple against Transubstantiation, to expose the Heresie of the Apollinarians and Eutychians; which plainly shews, [Page 5] that Our Opinion as to the Holy Sacrament, was in those times the received Opinion of the Catholick Church.

To prove this particularly: St. Chrysostome, Patri­arch of Constantinople, writing to his old Acquaintance Caesarius to reclaim him from the Apollinarian Heresie, into which he had unluckily fallen, among other Ar­guments he used to convince him, he drew a parallel from the Eucharist to shew, that Christ had two di­stinct Natures in one Person. As, saith he, before Con­secration we call it Bread, but the Divine Grace having sanctified it by the Prayer of the Priest, it is no longer called Bread, but is thought worthy to be called the Lords Body, altho the Nature of Bread remains in it, and we do not say there be two Bodies, but one Body of the Son; so here, the Divine Nature (of Christ) being joyned to the Humane, they both make one Son and one Person.

You must know, that the Greek Copy of this Epi­stle is not yet come to light: Very probably it is sup­prest by those, who know how to suppress many things which hurt their Cause, But a Latin Copy of it was found in Archbishop Cranmer's time in a Libra­ry at Florence by Peter Martyr, who brought a Tran­script of it with him into England, and put it into the Archbishops Library. And this passage in it is such a stabbing blow to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that the Romanists have turn'd and twin'd themselves every way to evade the force of it, were it possi­ble.

First they denied this Epistle to be St. Chrysostome's. But this pretence has been since thrown out of doors by some learned Doctors of the Roman Church her self.

[Page 6] Stephen Gardiner, that dissembling and bloudy Bi­shop of Winchester, being somewhat conscious to him­self that this Epistle was Genuine, pretended Secondly, that by the Nature of Bread which St. Chrysostome saith remains, he meant not the Substance, but the Accidents and Properties of it: wherein he was fol­lowed by Bellarmine and divers others; and this is pretended still by some Popish Writers here in Eng­land now. But this is flatly to contradict the plainest and most natural expressions in the world. And be­sides it utterly overthrows the great design of St. Chry­sostome: for his purpose was to shew Cesarius, that the Substance of Christs Humanity remained after its uni­on to the Deity; for this was the thing in dispute with the Apollinarians. They owned the Accidents, the Properties, the Qualities of Humanity to remain in Christ, but affirm'd the substance of his Humane Nature to be turned into the Deity. So that had St. Chrysostome meant, that the Accidents only of Bread remained in the Sacrament, the example would not have been to the purpose, nor would the Argument have had any force at all, but St. Chrysostome would have proved himself the most weak and impertinent man at reasoning that could be. I will give you the words of a learned and moderate person of the Ro­man A Treatise of Transubstant. Communion now living, whose Book, I hope, you have by you. St. Chrysostome saith plainly, ‘that the Nature of Bread abideth after consecration; and this Fathers Argument would be of no validity, if this Nature of the Bread were nothing but in shew; for Appollinarius might have made another op­posite Argument, and say, that indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ, but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance, [Page 7] as the Bread in the Eucharist is, but in shew, and hath only outward and visible Qualities remaining in it, whereby it is termed to be Bread.’

One thing more I will observe to you, concerning this Epistle, to shew how injuriously some have dealt with St. Chrysostome, and how those men speak against their own Consciences when they tell us, as they have often done, that this great man is on their side, A few years ago the learned Mounsieur Bigotius found this Epistle at Florence, and Anno 1680. printed it in his Edition of Palladius with the best Apology he could make for this passage. But when the Book was now ready to be published, some of the Sorbon Doctors fraudulently cut out this Epistle, and Bigotins his Preface to it. What an Art is this, first to cut out an Authors Tongue for speaking against them, and yet to pretend that he spake on their behalf? Yet it was not so cunningly done, but that the abuse was complain'd of; and by good Providence the Leaves which were thus shamefully cut out, are lately fallen into the hands of a learned man of our Church, who hath given us a full and particular account of this whole matter, in his excellent Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, to which I refer you for your more ample satisfaction, both as to the Epi­stle it self, and as to the strength of St. Chrysostome's Argument against the Apollinarians, which utterly de­stroyes the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

To go on now with our Historical Account. Our next ancient Writer is Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, a great Man at the Council of Chalcedon, An­no 451. and without controversie one of the most learned Men of that Age.

[Page 8] The Heresie of Apollinarus had now been espous­ed by Eutyches of Constantinople: Theodoret undertook the quarrel and wrote excellently against the Eutychi­ans by way of Dialogue: and among several other strong Arguments he drew an example from the Ho­ly Eucharist, as St. Chrysostome had done before him. I think it is my best way to lay before you that part of the Dialogue, which chiefly concerns us, nakedly as it lies in Theodoret; only you must remember that 'tis between Orthodoxus and Eranistes; now Orthodoxus personates the Catholick, and Eranistes the Here­tick; the former held, that Christ had two Natures in one Person; the latter, that his Humane Nature, was absorpt, and substantially changed into his Divi­nity.

[Page 10] Nothing can be plainer than this to Men who are not obstinately addicted to an Opinion in spight of all Reason and Sense. And what The­odoret saith here, is very agreeable to▪ what he told Eranistes in the First Dialogue, viz. That our Saviour honoured the visible Symbols with the Appellation of his Body and Blood, not changing the Nature of them, but adding Grace to Nature. To avoid all this, our Adversaries pretend, that by Sub­stance and Nature Theodoret means the Accidents of Bread; which is in effect to tell us, that they are utterly resolved to believe, or at least to be­friend a Lie: For who, that really loves Truth, would thus confound things, so as to make Substance and Accident the same? But if they will strain their parts to play tricks with words, how can they make this their interpretation to come up to The­odoret's design, or to reach the Argument he had in hand, which was about the supposed substantial change of Christ's Humane Nature into his Divini­ty? Theodorets purpose was to Confute this by Ar­guing from the Doctrine of the Sacrament; and had the Church believed a Substantial change of the Bread, this would have confirm'd the Eutychian in his Opinion, but it could not have Confuted it: For the Heretick desired no more to be granted him, but this, that the Nature, or Substance of the Elements doth cease, though the Accidents continue: And this in­deed would have favour'd his conceit, that the Sub­stance of Christ's Humanity did cease, the Proper­ties of it Remaining still: But Theodoret could not be so weak as to yield this; for then he would ine­vitably have lost himself in his Dispute.

[Page 11] But what think you of a Pope that disputed against the Eutychians too, and that from the very same Doctrine of the Sacrament? It was no less a Man than Gelasius, who was Bishop of Rome Anno 492. and wrote a Celebrated Book of the two Natures in Christ: Which though Bellarmine, and some more a­bout Bellarmine's time denied to be this Galasius his Book, yet the Arguments against them are so strong, that Cardinal Perron, Petavius and other Learned and more Ingenuous Men since, have yielded us that point: And the moderate Writer I quoted before, saith, This Work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius, &c. In that piece of Gelasius his Book which we have ex­tant Treatise of Transub. p. 40. in the Bibliotheca Patrum, he teacheth the same Doctrine which Theodoret did, and for the confirma­tion of the same thing, as Cardinal Bellarmine doth Bellarm. de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 27. confess. And what can be plainer than these words of Gelasius? Viz. That the Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis & Sanguinis Domini di­vina res est, propter quod & per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; & tamen esse non desinit Substantia vel Natura Panis & Vini, &c. of the Lord is a Divine thing, because by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature; and yet the Substance or Nature of the Bread and Wine doth not cease to be. And truly the Repre­sentation and Similitude of Christ's Body and Blood is Celebrated in the Ministration of these Mysteries; and therefore it is plain that we must think that of Christ him­self, which we profess and Celebrate in this Representa­tion of him. His meaning evidently is, that we must believe the Permanency of Christ's Humane Nature, though united to the Divine, because in the Holy Eucharist, which is the Representation of Christ, the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine remaineth, though Consecrated by the Minister.

[Page 12] And yet we have another eminent Writer on our side, no less a Man than Ephram, who was Patri­arch of Anti [...]ch about Anno 540. He disputed too a­gainst the Eutychians, and drew the very same Argu­ment from the Sacrament which others had used be­fore him, shewing, that the Humanity of Christ did not Cease in its Substance by being united to the word, no more than the Bread ceaseth in its Substance by the Addition of Spiritual Grace. That (says he) Phetii Biblio­thee. cod 229. which is received by the Faithful doth not depart out of its own sensible Substance and yet continues undivided from the intelligible Grace. And least it should be re­plyed (though 'tis strange it should) that by Sub­stance, he means the Species and Accidents of the Bread, he says the same thing of the Sacrament of Baptism, where no Romanist ever affirmed any Transubstanti­ation to be. His words are these; Baptism also, which becomes entirely a Spiritual thing, and is One, doth con­serve still the propriety of the sensible Substance. I mean Water, and loseth not what it was, Whence 'tis clear, that Ephram lookt upon the case in both Sacraments to be the same, an Addition of Spiritual Grace to be in both, but a loss of Substance to be in neither, nor any other change to be in the Eucharist, than what is in Baptism.

Sir, I have instanced in those four Writers particu­larly, not only because they were all Great Men in their Times, (Three of them Patriarchs, nay one of them Patriarch of Rome) but because they all argued against the same Heresie after the same manner; which to me seems very observable and providential: For tho the Eutychian Heresie prevailed so long, and did spread so far, that it did vast mischief, yet God dire­cted the issues of it so, that 'twas an occasion of shew­ing [Page 13] us what the Catholick Faith was, both in the Greek and Latin Churches, in those most Learned and flourishing times of Christianity, concerning that great point which in these latter Ages hath made so many distractions in Christendom. For it is not to be imagined, but that these Eminent Bishops spake the sense of the whole Catholick Church, over which they presided. For having to do with obstinate He­reticks, they were obliged to encounter them upon principles which all Christians consented to, and were agreed; otherwise the Disputations would have been Endless, had they argued from principles of their own, and which they were still to prove. It was necessa­ry for them to proceed upon some common Foundati­on, whereon both Hereticks and Catholicks did stand, and such was this Doctrine of the Sacrament; for which Reason the Learned Doctors of the Church chose to insist upon it; nor do I find that the Here­ticks did contradict it, or endeavour to destroy it; which they would most certainly have done (consi­dering how much it made against them) had they not known it to have been a principle, universally receiv'd, that the Bread and Wine are not Transub­stantiated, but remain still in their own Nature and Substance, even after Consecration.

For this Reason I have omitted an hundred other quotations out of the Ancients, and have taken no­tice only of this their common Argument against the Eutychians, because I think it a plain and concise way of confuting the Popish pretence, touching the Anti­quity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. For it is not imaginable that the Ancients would have spo­ken so peremptorily and dogmatically in this point, had they not had the Authority of the whole Church [Page 14] to have back't them: And because they spake this so freely, and that as a common Argument against those Learned Hereticks, we may be sure, that what they said was the common Faith of the Catholick Church in those times; I mean in the Sixth Century.

And now, Sir, I shall proceed to Examine, how the matter stood as to this point in the times follow­ing. It is evident, that the great Council of 338. Fathers, who met at Constantinople, Anno 754. were of this Faith, That the Bread in the Eucharist is not Christ himself, but the Image of him. For this they urg'd, as an Argument against the use of all other I­mages, because the Symbols in the Eucharist are the only Image of himself which he left his Church. Now this utterly overthrows the Doctrine of the Corporal presence (and much rather the conceit of Transubstan­tiation.) For if the Bread be the Image of his Body, it cannot be the Body it self, as the Second Nicene Council argued, when they oppos'd the Definitions of this Council at Constantinople. And besides, there is something very observable in the Discourse of this Council upon this point, which I wonder so many Writers have not taken notice of, and it is this, that Christ Ordaining at his last Supper this Image of himself, intended to shew the Mystery of his Incarnation. And to this purpose they exprest themselves, as any one may see by consulting the Acts of the Council; As Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. when Christ took our Nature, he took barely the matter of Humane Substance, not his whole Person, Divinity and all; for to suppose that would be an Offence, or De­rogation to the Deity; so when he appointed this Image of himself, he chose barely the Substance of Bread, not any shape of Man in it but only a Representation of his Natural Flesh; for that would have been an Intreduction of Ido­latry. [Page 15] Moreover they say, that as Christ's Natural Body was Holy by being filled with the Deity; so this I­mage of him becomes Holy, by being Sanctified by Grace; and as that Flesh of ours, which Christ took, became Sanctified by being united to the Deity, so is the Bread in the Eucharist (the true Image of his Natural Flesh) Sanctified by the Advent of the Holy Spirit, &c. Is this at all consistent with Transubstantiation, or with the Doctrine of Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament? And yet this was the sense of those 338. Fathers which they Dogmatically deliver'd as the sense of the Church, whereof they lookt upon themselves as the Representatives. Therefore Cardinal Bellar­mine understanding their sense throughly, and finding how strongly and invincibly it made against Tran­substantiation, had no other way left him but to rank this great Council among Hereticks; nay, he says they were the first, that ever called in question the Truth of the Lords Body in the Eucharist. Now this Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. is easily said; but by his favour, they denied not the reality of Christ's Spiritual presence, but of his Corpo­ral presence only, as we Protestants do. Nay he himself rightly observes in the same place, that the Protestant Faith in this point was not reckon'd among any of the Ancient Heresies, nor so much as disputed against by any one of the Ancients for the first 600. Years. For how should any Dispute against that, which was the Common Faith of the Church, and had been so all along, to the time of this Constantinopolitan Council? Those Fathers did no more but declare that publickly, which they had received from former A­ges, and now made use of as a proper Argument a­gainst Images.

The Patrons of Images finding themselves pinch't [Page 16] with this Argument, began to move a point which hitherto lay quiet, and to strain those words, This is my Body, to a sense beyond what had been for­merly taught, though it was a great while before they could hammer out their New Notions into a­ny Form; for they spake very confusedly, inconsi­stently, and grosly, as if Christ's Natural Body were in the Sacrament.

And though I do not find that any of them went so far as to own yet a Substantial change of the Nature of the Bread and Wine into the Substance of Flesh and Blood (which is the conceit of the Church of Rome now) yet 'tis plain, that what these Innova­tors said, caused a New Great Controversie in Chri­stendom, and that just upon the neck of the former Quarrel about Images, whereof I have already gi­ven you a particular and Faithful account.

II. And now I am come to the Second Thing I promised to shew you; which was, when, and how the sense of the Ancient Church about the Sacrament, came to be alter'd, what progress that alteration made, and what strong Opposition it met with for several A­ges after it began.

It is generally agreed, that Paschasius Rathbertus was one of the first Innovators in the Latin Church, Vide Albertin. de Sacram. p. 920. about Anno 818. He was first a Monk, and after­wards Abbot of Corbey in France, and a Man of some considerable Reputation (especially for those times, when Learning was most decayed,) which perhaps might transport him into an undue Opinion of his own abilities; and that might make him affect sin­gularity. However it came about, two very Learned Jesuites are agreed, that Paschasius was a Leading Man [Page 17] in this business, So says Bellarmine, that Paschasius Bellarm. de Scriptor. Eccles. in Paschas. & Sirmond. in vita Paschasii operibus ejus prefix. was the first Author that wrote seriously and copiously of the Truth of the Lords Body and Blood in the Eu­charist. And so saith Sirmondus, that Paschasius was the first that explained the Genuine sense of the Catho­lick (he means the Roman) Church so as that he ope­ned the way to others, who afterwards wrote upon the same Subject.

The Book which they chiefly mean, is that of the Body and Blood of the Lord, written to one Placidus, a young man whom Paschasius dearly loved. In read­ing of this Book one shall find so many dark Riddles, unconquerable perplexities, and plain inconsistences, that it may be justly questioned, whether they are possible to be reconciled to Truth or Sense; nay, whether the Man himself understood what he would be at. One while he will have it to be nothing else but the Flesh and Blood of Christ; and another while to be a Figure, and the Flesh and Blood of Christ Mystically. Now he says, that Christ's Body is Cre­ated in the Sacrament, than that it is made of the Substance of Bread, and by and by, that the Myste­ry is Celebrated in the Substance of Bread and Wine. Sometime he tells us, that 'tis the very Body which Christ took of the Virgin; and presently that it is wholly a Spiritual and Divine thing which we Eat of, and that 'tis his Spiritual Flesh. In one fit he says 'tis the Flesh of Christ which repairs and nou­rishes our Flesh, because the whole Man is redeemed; and in another he says as positively, that all must be spiritually understood, that we must not think of any thing here that is Carnal, and that if there were a real change of the Bread into Flesh, it would be no more the Flesh of Christ, than now it is, because the [Page 18] whole Mystery is Spiritual. Throughout the whole book there are so many loose, uncouth, and inconsi­stent Notions, that there is hardly any thing plain in it but this, that he owns a Real presence, though the Man seems miserably confounded how to make you in any measure to understand it, or how to understand himself his own meaning.

As I was reading the Book, I was apt to believe, that either he harped upon that Notion of Christ's Spiritual Body and Blood in the Sacrament, which se­veral of the Ancient Fathers insisted on, and which is of such great use for the unfolding of this mystery; or else that his conceits were meerly the raw issue of an unripened Judgment (for he Wrote that piece while he was yet a Monk.) But comparing it with his Epistle to Frudegard, and his exposition upon St. Matthew 26. v. 26. (both which he wrote when he was now Abbot and an Old Man) I thought it more reasonable to conjecture, that as at first he af­fected singularity, so to the last he was resolved to persist in it. For he stifly held it, that the very Body of Christ wherein he Suffer'd and Rose again, is of a Truth in the Sacrament materially and in the propriety of its Nature. And yet to do him right, I do not see that he believ'd the Nature of Bread to be Annihilated, or Transubstantiated, no, his opinion seems quite diffe­rent from that. He comes nearer to the Doctrine of Consubstantiation, that it is true Bread and true Flesh too; or rather to the conceit of Impanation (as they call it) as if Christ assumed the Bread, and united it Corporally to himself upon the Consecration, as he assumed our Flesh, and united it to the Divinity at his Incarna­tion. But this is a Candid interpretation. Whatever his fancy was, it soon startled many Learned and [Page 19] Great Men in the Church. For Paschasius himself doth confess, that many doubted of of the Truth of his Do­ctrine, that many questioned, how the Sacrament could be the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet Christ remain en­tire; that he had provoked many to look narrowly into the thing, because it is said, the Flesh profiteth nothing; Ep ad Fru­degard. & ex­pos. in Matth. that others understood it to be not true Flesh, and true Blood, but only the Vertue of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament; that some reprehended him for what he had written in his Book of the Sacrament, believing that it was not true, and suspecting that his design was to be in the head of a Faction; and then with some cho­ler he calls them Prating and Unlearned Men, that would not believe, but that a Body must be palpable and visible.

But hard words were far from stifling this matter. Pas­chasius his New Opinion had taken air, and though it fell vastly short of Transubstantiation, yet there was enough in it to stirr the the zeal of the Orthodox; and so it was ventilated, till by degrees it brake out into a flaming Controversie.

Paschasius his Contemporary Rabanus was one of the most Eminent Men of that time; first a Monk at Fuld in Franconia, where afterward he succeeded his Friend Egilo in the Abbacy, Anno 822. and at last was Archbishop of Mentz: The Glory of Germa­ny, and admirably skill'd in all sorts of Learning, es­pecially in the Hebrew, Greek and Latin Languages, as the Romanists themselves do confess. As soon as Paschasius's Book came abroad and made a noise in the World, this Rabanus undertook and confuted it, in an Epistle directed to Egilo then Abbot of the Monastery at Fuld. Indeed this Epistle is not now extant (care enough has been taken by some, [Page 20] who thought themselves concern'd to suppress it:) But that such an Epistle was Written by Rabanus a­gainst Paschasius undeniably appears from several Ma­nuscripts of an Author of the same Age, and a Friend to Paschasius his Opinion. Three of these Ma­nuscripts were seen by the Learned Albertinus in some Libraries in France; and a Fourth is in the Cottonian Albert de Eu­char. lib. 3. pag. 921. Usher. An­swer to the Challenge, p. 17. & de suc­ces. & stata p. 38, 39. Library, and a Fifth at Sidney Colledge in Cambridge; both which were perused by the incomparable Bi­shop Usher. This Author I say, having laid down Paschasius his Opinion, that the Flesh which is received at the Altar, is no other than that which was born of the Virgin Mary, suffer'd on the Cross, Rose again from the Grave, and as yet is daily offer'd for the Life of the World; at last he says, contra quem (sc. Pascha­sium) satis argumentatur & Rabanus, &c. against Pas­chasius both Rabanus in his Epistle to Abbot Egilo, and one Ratrannus in a Book written to King Charles (of France) argue largely, saying, that it is another kind of Flesh. And besides Rabanus himself tells us, that he wrote against this Errour of Paschasius's in an Epistle to Abbot Egilo. For in his Penitential set out at In­glostad by Peter Steuart, he says (repeating the very words of Paschasius) some of late, not having a Right opinion of the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood, have af­firmed, Raban peni­tential. c. 33. de Euchar. ad Heribald. that 'tis that very Body and Blood of the Lord, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which the Lord suffer'd on the Cross, and rose again from the Grave: Against which Errour (saith he) we have imployed our last endeavours, writing to Abbot Egilo, declaring what is truly to be believed concerning Christs Body. It seems there was a little Dash, or rasure in this passage of Rabanus, supposed to have been made by the Monks at Heingart, where the Manuscript was found, and in­deed [Page 21] 'tis an Artifice which has been commonly used by many disingenuous Romanists, and a very great Honour it is to their Cause, to mutilate and corrupt writings which make against them; but 'tis sufficient for me to note, how Rabanus calls the conceit of a Corporal presence, a late Errour; and yet then it was not so bulky, as in later Ages, when it swell'd into the most gross Opinion of Transubstantiation.

Anno 837. or thereabout, a great Council was held at Carisiacum in France; the same Council, if I mi­stake Vide Usser Histor. Gottes. Chalch. p. 87. not, where the Opinions of Gotteschalchus touch­ing Predestination were consider'd and condemn'd, and Paschasius Ratbertus, then Abbot of Corbey, was one of that Council. Whether they determin'd any thing against Paschasius himself, is not certain; for the Printed Account we have hitherto had of that Council is very imperfect, but the Learned and in­quisitive Du Plessis saw some Manuscript Acts of this Council, which though they struck immediately at Amalarius for some Errours he held about the Sacra­ment, De missa. lib. 4. cap. 8. pag. 743. yet are they so Opposite to Paschasius's Fancy and Destructive of it, as if the Council had intended to wound Paschasius through Amalarius his side. Thus it was: Amalarius, Archbishop of Lyons, was a consi­derable men in that Age; but in some points he held very absurd and monstrous Opinions; for which rea­son the Church of Lyons after­wards took it ill, that Amalari­us Multum molestè & dolenter accepimus, ut Ecclesiastici & prudentes viri tantam injuri­am sibimetipfis fecerint, ut Amalarium de Fedei ratione consulerent, qui & verbit, & Libris suis mendaciis, & erroribus & fanta­sticis, atque hereticis disputationibus plenis omnes pene apud Frauciam Ecclesias, & non­nullas etiam aliarum regiontum quantum in se fult infecit atque corrupit, &c. Eccles. Lug. dunens. de tribut Epistolis; Bibliothec. P 9. had been consulted in the cause against Gotteschalchus, be­cause he had done his endeavour to infect and corrupt all the (hur­ches in France, With Lyes and Er­rours, and with fantastical and He [Page 22] retical disputations, that his Writings ought to have been burnt. The Errours thus objected against him seem plainly to have been those concerning the Sacrament. For this was one of his Fantastical and Heretical Notions; that Christ hath a Tripartite Body; one that he took of the Virgin; another that is in us who live upon the Earth; and a Third that is in those who are dead. This monstrous Opinion we find in the 35th. Chapter of his Third Book de Officiis Ecclesiasticis; and it was laid to his charge by the Carisiac Synod, as Du Plessis shews: And this seems to be that foolery about the Tripartite Redy of Ad ultimum quoeso ne sequaris ineptias de Tripartito Christi Corpore. Paschas. ad Frudegard. in fine. Christ, which Paschasius him­self caution'd Frudegard against. For this was a different thing from Paschasius his Ima­gination of the threefold Body of Christ. Though A­malarius favour'd Paschasius his Opinion as to the main of it, yet in some things they were divided, that In­novation being as yet Raw and Undigested. But be­sides this, Amalarius had another New conceit agree­able to that of Paschasius, that the simple Nature of Amalar. de Of­fic. Ecclesiast. c. 24. Bread and Wine is turn'd into a reasonable Nature, that is the Nature of Christ's Body and Blood; though he could not tell what becomes of this Body when 'tis received, whether it goes up to Heaven, or flies out into the Air, or remains in the Communicants Body till death, or goes out at the opening of the Vein. Such phantastical and heretical conceits had this Man Answer to the Jesuites Chal­lenge pag. 79. about this matter; for Bishop Usher saw in Bennet's Colledge Library one of his Epistles in Manuscript to Guitard wherein he exprest himself to this purpose; and the same Errours were charged upon him by the Carisiac Synod also. Now the Councils definition up­on this strikes at all in short, to the ruin of Amalarius [Page 23] and Paschasius his cause too; viz. That the Bread and Wine is Spiritually made the Body of Christ, that is, the Mystery of our Life and Salvation, wherein one thing is seen by the Eye of the Body, and another by the Eye of Faith; that it is the Food of the mind, not of the Belly, that in that visible Bread and Drink a Man re­ceives the virtue of invisible Grace, and that the Body of Christ is not in the visible thing, but in the Spiritual Virtue, &c.

The Acts of this Council were written by Florus, and dedicated to several Bishops, and other Great Men at that time: Which is a clear Argument, that the sense of the Carisiac Synod was very agreeable to the received Doctrine of the Church then: Which I note the rather, because for the space of about 200. years no Council but this took any notice (that I know) of the Doctrine of the Sacrament; and yet a great many Synods were held on several occasions in that long tract of time; and a Controversie upon such a weighty point could not have escaped them all, and this being the first that ruin'd the pretence of a Corporal Presence, it is easie to believe, that till now there had been no occasion for a publick difini­tion in this point; and that when this occasion was offer'd, they were resolved to stifle this Innovation upon its first appearance.

To go on now with matter of Fact: Of those that singly engaged in the quarrel with Paschasius, Bertram was the next. You find by the Nameless Author a­bove mentioned, that not only Rabanus wrote against him, but also Ratranus, who is now usually called Bertram (for he is indifferently called Bertramus, Ra­tramnus, Ratrannus.) Whatever his right Name was, he was a Monk of Corbey, and a very Eminent Per­son [Page 24] about Anno 840. for the Controversie now grow­ing hot, especially in France where it had been kind­led, and Carolus Calvus being very desirous to quench it in time, directed Bertram (so I will now call him) to give his sense of it. Bertram in obedience to the King's Command wrote an Excellent book upon the Subject; in the beginning whereof he takes notice of no small Schism that then was in the Church, about the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood; and then he states the Two Great Questions which Carolus Cal­vus had proposed to him.

I. Whether the Sacrament be a Figure of some se­cret thing which is exhibited with it, and which is the Object not of Sense, but of Faith.

II. Whether that thing so exhibited be the very Natural Body of Christ, which was Born of the Vir­gin Mary, which Suffer'd, which was Dead and Bu­ried, which Rose again, which Ascended into Heaven, and Sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father (which was the Opinion, and the very words of Pascha­sius?)

I. As to the First, though (at the close of his Book) he denies the Sacrament to be a meer Figure, a bare Shadow, an empty Sign without Christ's real Pre­sence; yet he owns it to be a Figure; and solidly proves from Scripture, Reason and the Authority of several Ancient Fathers, that it is a Figure, and that under the visible and corruptible Elements, as under a Cover, is contained a Divine and Spiritual Thing, which is believed to be there upon Consecration through the Operation of the Spirit, without any Corporal change of the things we see, but the Elements Neque ista commutatio cor­poraliter, sed spi­ritualiter facta. Quoniam sub ve­lamento Corpo­rei panis, Corpo­rei (que) vini spi­rituale Corpus Christi, spiritua­lis (que) sanguis existit. Nam secundum Creaturarum Substantiam, quod fuerunt ante Consecratio­nem, hoc & posten consistunt. [Page 25] remaining still Corporeal Bread, and Corporeal Wine. For as to that he is positive, that in respect of the Sub­stance of those Creatures, they continue the very same thing which they were before Consecration:

II. And as to the Second Question, he distingui­shes with St. Ambrose and St. Jerome, between the Na­tural and the Spiritual Body of Christ, and peremp­torily determines against Paschasius, and that over and over, that it is not the true, proper, and Natural Body, which was born of the Virgin, which Suffer'd and was Dead, &c. which is receiv'd in the Sacra­crament, but his Spiritual Body; that 'tis Christ's Bo­dy, though not his Corporal, but Spiritual Body; that 'tis the Blood of Christ, though not his Corporal, but Spiritual Blood: Which he explains thus, not that Christ hath two Bodies severally existent, and utter­ly different from each other in Nature, as Body and Spirit are; but because a Spiritual power and efficacy goes along with the bodily Bread and Wine; because by and with these Creatures, there is Ministred to the Faithful a Vital Virtue, the vigour of a Spiritual Life, that word of God which is the living Bread, a Divine Virtue which secretly dispenseth Salvation to all Faithful Receivers, an invisible Power, which spiritu­ally ministreth the Substance of Eternal Life, a Sub­stance of Spiritual Operation, of invisible efficacy, and of Divine Virtue (as Bertram often expresseth himself) all which is supposed to be derived from Christ's Glorified Humanity, and therefore not improperly call'd his Spiritual Body, according to that Old Noti­on which St. Cyril of A'exandria, and the Ephesine [Page 26] Council had of the vivisick power of Christ's Bo­dy, as being replenisht with the Deity.

But I will not give you a large account of this Book, because it is common, and because every one knows how strongly it confutes the Opinion not only of Transubstantiation, but also of a Corporal presence, which was the New phancy of Paschasius.

I shall only observe this to you by the way, that the blessed Masters of the Inquisition, whose business it was to search into Books, and to let Men know what Authors they were not to use (for the preten­ded Catholick Faith cannot well endure Examinati­on) that they might be lustily reveng'd upon poor Bertram for his plain dealing, ordered this invaluable Piece of his to be supprest, and accordingly 'tis ran­ked among the Prohibited Books in the Tridentine, Roman and Spanish Indices Expargatorii. Only the Men of Doway, mistrusting that this course would turn to the shame and prejudice of their Cause, the Book being abroad in all Mens hands, thought it bet­ter to Tolerate it with some Blottings, Alterations, and Constructions of their own making. Whereas (say they) there are very many Errours in other Old Ca­tholick Writers, which we bear with, extenuate, excuse, many times deny by some Artificial device or other, and fix a commodious sense upon them; we see not but Ber­tram sudex Belgic. (a Catholick Presbyter) may deserve the same E­quity, and diligent Rivisal. But with what Equity they have used him, or rather how basely and barba­rously they have wronged him, any man may see, that will but look into the Belgick Index Expurgato­rius; for here they have quite rased him, there they have wrested him, there again they have made him speak flat Contradictions, throughout they have used [Page 27] so many Charms and Spells over him, as if they had perfectely designed by hook or by crook even to Transubstantiate Old Bertram out of himself.

But these Great Men stood not alone in this quarrel. Bertram's contemporary, the famous Joannes Scotus E­rigena was deeply concern'd in it too. I give him that Character, because the Historians which speak of him mention him with Honour. Carolus Calvus of France had such a value for him, that he made Hovedan. An­nal. him his Companion at Bed and Board, Pope Nicolas himself gave him the Character of a Man renowned for his great knowledge: Nor was it any thing but his Eminent worth that made King Alfred, that Lo­ver of Learning, invite him back into England; and fix him in the Monastery at Malmesbury, for the advancement of good Literature. Briefly, those dis­putations of his, which, while he was yet in France, he wrote against Gotteschalchus, and which did so trou­ble the whole Church of Lyons how to Answer, are a sufficient Argument of his Abilities Now all a­gree, that this Joannes Scotus Erigena went hand in hand with Bertram, as to the Doctrine of the Sacra­ment, insomuch that some would make us believe, that the Book commonly ascribed to Bertram was com­posed by this Scotus. And though I see no good Reasons to think so, yet certain it is, that he wrote a Tract upon the same Subject, and to the same effect, and very probably at the Command of Carolus Cal­vus also. About two hundred years after, when Berengarius his business grew hot, and the Opinion of a Corporal Presence by the interest of a Faction had gotten ground, Scotus his Book was urged and Vindicated by Berengarius; and his adversary Lanc­franck own'd, that 'twas written in Opposition to Pas­chasius; [Page 28] for which Reason it was condemn'd by that partial Synod at Vercellis Anno 1050. By the ac­count we have of it now, it appears, that Scotus fair­ly went, as Bertram did upon the sense of St. Am­brose, Jerome, Austin and other of the Ancients. And this is very observable, that in the Controversie with Gotteschalchus about Predestination which was ardent at that time, these two Learned Men were divided; for Bertram was on Gotteschalchus his side, and Scotus was against him: But however they differ'd in that Point, in this concerning the Sacrament they were both agreed, which shews, that it was not Friendship, or Prejudice, or the love of a party which Govern'd them in their perswasions, but the entire love they had for those things which seem'd to be True; and that it appear'd to them both as an unquestionable Truth, from Scripture, Reason, and the Catholick Doctrine of the Ancient Church (which they both insisted on) that Christ's Presence in the Sacrament is only Spiritual.

I end this with an Observation of a moderate Wri­ter, yet living in the Gallican Church, concerning this Scotus; that if he had advanced any New Do­ctrine, he would certainly have been reproved for it Treatise of Transubstanti­ation turn'd into English, and Printed at London. 1687. pag. 58. by the Church of Eyons, by Prudentius, by Florus, by the Colineils of Valence and Langres, which con­demned and censur'd his opinions on the Doctrine of Predestination.

As for his Death; though he wsa barbarously Murder'd by his own Scholars at Malmesbury, it is so far from being a Blot upon his Memory, or a dis­paragement to his Cause, that it is an Honour to Both: For every one knows, he was reckon'd a Mar­tyr. Indeed it is not certain what the true occasion [Page 29] of that horrid wickedness was. Very probably he had been too liberal of his Wit against the dull and wan­ton Monks: Though Genebrard insinuates, that it was for his Doctrine of the Sacrament, yet Monsieur Duval consesseth, this was Genebrards private conje­cture, not founded on any Authority or Testimony. I be­lieve, Genebrard. in Liturg Dionys. Duval annot. in lib. Ecclesiae Lugd. adv. Scot. the conceit of a Corporal Presence was hardly so much as known at that time in England; and af­ter it came to be vended here? it was a long time e're it came to that value, as to be made the price of Blood.

There were many other men of note in this Ninth Century, whom divers Writers on our side have pro­ved to have declared their minds against the Innova­tion of Paschasius; such as Hincmarus, Walesridus Strabo, Heribald, Drusilmanus, and several more, whose names you meet with in many Latin Tracts, and in that English Treatise I mention'd just now. But I will not spend my time upon every little quo­tation, least I should make this Letter swell beyond a due proportion; and besides I think it not amiss to divert you a little with some account of the posture of this affair about that time here at home, because I have just spoken of Scotus, who was either our Coun­try Man, or a near Neighbour.

Somewhat after the 900th. year from Christ, O­do was ArchBishop of Canterbury; and he would have brought into England the belief of a Corporal presence: But it seems the Clergy were too Honest to be wrought upon. In those days most doubted of the Truth (meaning, the Substantial Presence) of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, saith William Malmesb. de gest. pontif. An­gl. p. 201. Osbern. in vita Odon. of Malmesbury: Some Clergy Men asserted (saith Osbern) that the Bread and Wine after Consecra­tion [Page 30] remain in their own former Substance. He saith, some, but he should have said the Generality of Men believed so, for it was then the common Opinion in the Church of England. But this has been the cu­stome of that sort of men, when they are to tell Noses, or go to the Poll, to represent the adverse party as a little Handful, though sometimes to their cost they find themselves sadly mistaken in their account.

For after the death of Odo, this was the common Faith of the Church of England, even in the days of Elfrick (or Alfrick) who was made Abbot of Malmesbury by King Edgar Anno 974. if Ingulphus be right in his computation. Indeed about that time Men did search, how bread that is gather'd of Corn, and A Saxon Ho­mily on Ea­ster-Day. through fires heat baked, may be turned to Christ's Body, &c. But the Doctrine of our Church which was then profest, and which upon that search was the more vigorously maintain'd, was, that 'tis Christ's Body Mystically, Spiritually, and by signification. The Reason why I say it, is this. Elfrick was of such great esteem in the Church, that his Writings were sorted among the publick Acts of the Church, and judged to contain the avowed and Authentick Do­ctrine of the Church of England then: For some of them were put among the Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions for the instruction and good Government of the Clergy; and some of his Writings were publick­ly read, in Churches, as Authoriz'd Homilies for the Information of all People. This account I find in in the Preface to a very scarce Book, under this Ti­tle, A Testimony of Antiquity, shewing the Ancient Faith of the Church of England touching the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord here publickly preach­ed, and also received in the Saxon time. This Book [Page 31] was Printed in Archbishop Parkers days (but there is no printed date of the year, only in MSS. 1567.) and Mr. Fox seems to have taken out of it all that ac­count which he gives us of this matter in his Acts and Monuments. It is a little Manual of some of Elfrick's Works: First a Sermon Translated by Elfrick out of some Latin Author into the Saxon Language (which was publickly read here on Easter-Day) and then two of his Epistles to two Bishops: Out of which, saith the Prefacer, it is not hard to know, not only so much what Alfrickes judgment was in this Controversie, but also, that more is, what was the common received Doctrine herein of the whole Church of England as well when El­fricke himself lived, as before his time, and also after his time, even from him to the Conquest.

The piece I now speak of being a Rarity, I will give you this account of it, premising this only, that by Housel is meant the Elements in the Sacrament, the Sacramental Bread and Wine. In the Sermon for Easter (the Saxon Language on the one Page, and the common English over against it on the other) after a pretty long comparison made in the beginning between the Paschal Lamb in Egypt, and our Bles­sed Saviour, these words follow: ‘Now Men have often searched, and do yet often search, how Bread that is gathered of Corne, and through fyers heate baked may be turned to Christes Body, or how Wyne that is pressed out of many Grapes, is tur­ned through one blessing to the Lords Bloude. Now say we to suche men, that some thinges be spoken of Christ by signification, some thyngs by thyng certain. True thyng is and certain, that Christ was born of a Maid, and suffered Death of his own ac­corde, and was buryed, and on thys day rose from [Page 32] Death. He is sayd Bread by a signification, and a Lamb, and a Lyon, and a Mountayne. He is cal­led bread, because he is our Life and Angels Life. He is sayd to be a Lamb for his innocence; a Ly­on for strength wherewith he overcame the strong Devil. But Christ is not so notwithstanding after true Nature, neither Bread, nor a Lamb, nor a Lyon, why is then that holy Housel called Christ's Body or his Blood, if it be not truly that it is called? Truly the Bread and the Wyne which by the Masse of the Priest is Halowed, shew one thing without to humayne understanding, and another thing they call within to beleving mindes. Without they be sene Bread and Wine both in Figure and in tast; and they be truely after their halowing Christes Bo­dy and hys bloude through Ghostly mistery. An heathen Childe is Christened, yet he altereth not hys shape without though he be chaunged within. He is brought to the Font-Stone sinful through A­dams disobedience: Howbeit he is washed from all Sinne within though he hath not altered hys shape without. Even so the Holy Font Water that is cal­led the well spryng of Life is lyke in shape to other Waters, and is subject to corruption; but the Holy Ghostes myght commeth to the corruptible Water through the Priestes Blessing, and it may after wash the Body and Soule from all Sinne, through Ghostly myghte. Beholde now we see two thyngs in this one Creature. After true Nature that Water is cor­ruptible Water, and after Ghostly mistery hath ha­lowing mighte. So also if we beholde that Holy Housell after bodely understanding, then see we that it is a Creature corruptible and mutable: If we ac­knowledge therein ghostly myghte, then understand [Page 33] we that lyfe is therein, and that it giveth immor­tality to them that eat it with beliefe. Muche is betwixt the invisible myght of the Holy Housell, and the visible shape of its proper Nature. It is naturally corruptible Bread, and corruptible Wyne, and is by myght of Gods worde truely Christes Bo­dy and his Bloude. Much is betwixt the Body Christ suffered in, and the Body that is Halowed to Housell. The Body truely that Christ suffred in, was born of the Flesh of Mary, with bloude and with bone, with Skinne and with Sinews, in Hu­mane Limmes, with a reasonable Soule living: And his Ghostly Body; which we call the Housell, is ga­thered of many cornes, without Bloude and Bone, without Limme, without Soule, and therefore no­thing is to be understand therein bodelye, but all is Ghostly to be understand. Whatsoever is in that Housell which giveth Substance of Lyfe, that is of the Ghostly myghte, and invisible doing. There­fore is the Holy Housell called a misterye, because there is one thing in it seene, and another thing un­derstanded. That which is there sene hath bodily shape, and that we do there understand, hath Ghost­ly might. Certainly Christ's body which suffred Death and rose from Death, never dyeth henceforth; but is Eternal and unpassible: That Housell is Temporal, not Eternall; corruptible, and dealed in­to sondrye parts; Chewed between Teeth, and sent into the Belly: Howbeit neverthelesse after Ghost­ly myghte, it is all in every parte.—This miste­rye is a pledge and a Figure; Christes Body is Truth it self. This pledge we do keep mistically, until that we become to the Truth it self, and then is this Pledge ended. Truely it is so as we before have [Page 34] sayd, Christes Bodye and hys Bloude; not bodilye, but Ghostly.—The Saviour sayeth, He that eat­eth my Flesh, and Drinketh my Blood, hath everlasting Life. And he bad them not eat that Body which he was going about with, nor that bloude to drink which he shed for us, but he ment with those wordes that Holy Housell, which Ghostley is hys Body, and hys Bloude; and he that tasteth it with belea­ving hart, hath that Eternal Lyfe.—Certainly this Housell which we do now halow at God's Al­tar, is a remembrance of Christes body which he offred for us, and of his Bloude which he shed for us.’

The meaning of this Mystery being there thus un­folded, the rest of that Sermon is, touching the man­ner how people should receive it; which I shall not transcribe, because it is not so much to my present In Hen. 8. a­bout the six Articles. purpose; and the whole is in Mr. Fox, where you may peruse it at your leisure.

The next thing is an Epistle of Elfrick's to Wulf­sine, Bishop of Scyrburne, by occasion of an ill cu­stome the Priests had of keeping the Consecrated E­lements by them an whole year. It is a short one, and you shall have it all.

‘Some Pristes keepe the Housell that is consecrate on Easter Day all the yere for Syke Men. But they do greatlye amysse, because it waxeth horye and rotten. And these will not understand how grevous penaunce the paenitential Booke teacheth by thys, if the Housell become horye and rotten; or yf that it be lost; or be eaten of Beasts by negly­gence. Men shall reserve more carefullye that ho­ly Housell, and not reserve it to long, but Conse­crate other of newe for Syke men alwayes within [Page 35] a weke or a fortnight that it be not so much as horye. For so holy is the Housell which to day is halowed as that which on Easter-day was hallowed. That Holy Housell is Christes Body, not bodily but Ghostly. Not the bodye which he suffred in, but the Body of which he spake, when he blessed Bread and Wyne to Housell a night before his suffring, and said by the Blessed Bread, thys is my Body, and agayne by the Holy Wyne, this is my bloude which is shed for many in forgiveness of Sinnes. Understand now that the Lord who could turn that Bread before his suffring to his Body, and the Wyne to his Bloude Ghostlye, that the selfe same Lorde blesseth dayly through the Priestes handes Bread and Wyne to hys Ghostlye bodye, and to his Ghostlye bloude.’

The other Epistle is to Wulfstane Archbishop of Yorke, to the same purpose with the former, only somewhat longer; and about the middle of it he saith, ‘Christ Haloweth dayly by the handes of the Priest Bread to hys Body, and Wyne to his bloud in Ghostly mistery, as we read in bokes, And yet that lively bread is not so notwithstanding, not the selfe same Body that Christ suffered in. Nor that Holy Wyne is the Saviours Bloud which was shed for us in bodely thing, but in Ghostly understand­ing. Both be truely that bread hys Body, and that Wyne also hys bloud, as was the Heavenly Bread, which we call Manna, that fed forty yeres God's people.’

This Epistle to Wulfstane was first Written by El­fricke in Latin, and then by Wulfstanes directions Translated by him into English, though not Word for Word, as Elfrick tells him. And the Words ob­servable [Page 36] in the Latin are these: ‘Intelligite modo sa­cerdotes, quod ille Dominus qui ante passionem suam potuit convertere illum panem, & illud Vinum ad su­um Corpus & sanguinem; ipse quotidie sanctificat per manus Sacerdotum suorum Panem ad suum Corpus spiri­tualiter, & Vinum ad suum Sanguinem (non fit tamen hoc Sacrificium Corpus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis; nec Sanguis ejus, quem pro nobis effundit: Sed spiritu­aliter Corpus ejus efficitur & sanguis; sicut Manna quod de Coelo pluit, & aqua quoe de Petra Fluxit)’

Sir, These Three Things of Elfrick's are a Noble Monument of the Faith of the Church of England even to the Tenth Century: And though we find them in Mr. Fox and some other Authors, yet I thought my self obliged to give you this short ac­count of them out of a little Manual (which a Re­verend Friend of mine hath lent me) because at the end of it there is an attestation in Manuscript signed by Seventeen Bishops of our Church, under their own hands (as it seems) that the English Translation of this Sermon and the two Epistles is exactly agreea­ble to the Saxon Copies, which upon the Reformati­on were found in the Libraries of the Cathedral Churches, Worcester, Hereford, and Exeter; from which places (saith the Preface) divers of these Books have been deliver'd into the hands of the most Reverend Father, Matthew Archbishop of Canterbury (I suppose Dr. Parker) Least any doubt should arise about the Translation, whether it were skillfully or faithfully done; there is (as I told you) at the End, this attestation in Manuscript: ‘Now that this foresaid Saxon Homily with the other Testimonies before alledged do fully agree to the Old Ancient Books (whereof some be written in the Old Saxon, and some in the La­tine) [Page 37] from whence they are taken. These here under­written upon diligent perusing and comparing the same, have found by conference that they are truly put forth in Print without any adding, or withdrawing any thing, for the more faithful reporting of the same. In Witness whereof they have subscribed their’ Names (I will not go about to imitate their several dif­ferent hands least I prove a Bungler at it; but I ob­serve, the Bishop of Durham's Title is very differently Written from all the rest; for it is in Greek Chara­cters)

• 1 Matthue Archbishop of Canterburye.
• 2 Tho. Ebor. Archiepiscopus.
• 3 Edm. London.
• 4 Ja. [...]
• 5 Rob. Winton.
• 6 William Bushoppe of Chicester.
• 7 Jo. Bushop of Heref.
• 8 Richarde Bishope of Ely.
• 9 Ed. Wigorn.
• 10 N. Lincoln.
• 11 R. Meneven.
• 12 Thomas Covent and Lich.
• 13 John Norwic.
• 14 Joannes Carleolen.
• 15 Will. Cestren.
• 16 Thomas Assaphen.
• 17 Nicolaus Bangor.

Hii Patres precedentes subscripserunt manibus suis pro­priis in hoc Libello.

Now out of the whole four things are observable. 1. That even before the time of Elfrick, the Do­ctrine [Page 38] of Christs Spiritual presence only, was the Do­ctrine commonly and currently received in all the Western Churches, whatever fantastical Notions some private men might entertain to the contrary. For those Eighty Sermons which Elfrick spake of, as of his Preface to the Book now mention'd. own Writing (whereof that upon Easter-Day was one) were not of his own composure, but Tranflati­ons which he made out of Latin Writers; which Ib. shews, that the Latins whom he followed and Tran­slated had been positive against the new conceit of a Corporal presence.

2. That in Elfrck's time the same Doctrine was constantly held throughout the whole Church of En­gland as the True Doctrine. For how can we ima­gine, that Elfricks Translations could be read publick­ly in the Churches in England, if the English Bishops did not believe them to contain Doctrines that were found and agreeable to the Catholick Faith? Or how can we conceive, that Elfrick's Epistles should be put among the publick Writings of our Church, had not the Doctrines in them been publickly own'd and pro­fest here? And yet it is evident, that among other Canons which our Bishops collected out of Gildas, Ib. Theodorus, Egbert, Alcuine, and out of the Fathers of the Primitive Ages, they did sort those Epistles of Elfrick, for the better ordering of the English Church.

3. That those Writings of Elfrick's did so dire­ctly strike at the Errours of Paschasius, as if he had purposely designed to prevent those Errours from creeping into this Kingdom, and throughly to season the whole Nation against them. For in some places he takes the Opinion, nay the very words of Pascha­sius, and contradicts him so flatly in the words of [Page 39] Bertram and others of the former Century, that you would think he had some of those Authors before him, as perhaps he had.

4. That upon the Conquest, when divers of the Foreign Clergy came hither with and after Lancfrank (an Italian Patron of Paschasius's gross Opinion, and now sent for by the Conqueror to be Archbishop of Canterbury) they found the Doctrine of the Spiritual presence only taught and profest in the Church of England. For this reason they fell soul upon the Re­cords of our Church; and especially upon those La­tin Authors which Elfrick had made use of, and up­on what they could understand of Elfrick's own Wri­tings So that those Eighty Latin Sermons, which Elfrick had Translated, are long ago lost; nor did the Latin Epistle to Wulfstane (which they found in the Libra­ry Ibid. at Worcester, and probably was given to that Li­brary Ibid. by Wulfstane himself) escape them neither. For in part of that Epistle, where the tender point lay, a perfect Rasure was committed: I have Noted the words above in a Parenthesis, viz. that this Sacrifice is not made that Non fit tamen hoc Sacrificium Corpus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis, neque Sanguis ejus quem pro nobis effudit; sed spiritualiter Corpus ejus efficitur & San­guis, sicut Manna quod de Coelo pluit, & aqua quoe de Petra fluxit. Body of Christ in which he suffer'd for us, nor that Blood of Christ which he shed for us, but it becomes Spiri­tually his Body and Blood; as the Manna that descended from Heaven, and the Wa­ter which flowed out of the Rock. These words were flatly and expresly against the Opinion of Paschasi­us; and therefore they were quite rased out; tho' afterwards they were restored to us, out of another Latin Copy of the same Epistle in the Church of Exeter, which by good luck had escaped their Tallons.

Had these Men understood the Saxon Language, [Page 40] perhaps we should have had very little or nothing of Elfricks Writings left us. But such foul play is an e­vident Argument of a very bad Cause: And so I shall leave it to your consideration, what little Rea­son the Romanists have to call us Hereticks and In­novators in this point, when 'tis so plain that the In­novation lieth at their own door, and that when it first began to peep into the World, the Church of England would not endure it; but even in the days of the Saxons, when the Controversie about it was so hot abroad (especially in France) She still main­tain'd the Doctrine of the spiritual presence, so that it held on constantly here to the time of the Conquest; and might have held on still in an uninterrupted course from Age to Age, had it not been for some Workers of Iniquity.

Let us now cross the Sea again, and go on with out Relation of this matter, how it stood abroad; whence I have a little diverted you, though I hope with no unuseful or unpleasant Digression.

In the Tenth Century this Controversie seem'd to lie pretty Quiet; some following the phancy of Pas­chasius, that Christ's Natural Body is in the Sacra­ment, his Body properly so called, that which he took of the Holy Virgin, that which suffer'd upon the Cross, &c. Others following the Catholick Faith of the Ancient Church, that it is Christ's Spiritual Body; meaning, not his Flesh pro­perly, but the Virtue of his Flesh; Qui dicunt esse virtutem Carnis non Carnem, virtutem Sanguinis non Sangui­nem. Paschas. in Math. 26. not his Blood, but the Virtue of his Blood, as Paschasius himself re­presents their meaning in his time. The Truth is, this Tenth Century abounded with Men from whom [Page 41] the World could not expect any thing that was good, some very illiterate; some very Dull and Unactive; some very Lewd; some very Ambitious and self en­ded, and some quite discouraged by the tempestuous­ness of the times. By the account all Learned Men have given us, it was a most Infamous Age; the worst that ever was, or hath been hitherto, since the be­ginning of Christianity.

Probable it is, that at this time Paschasius his Opi­nion did spread, and even to the Court of Rome, when nothing in comparison was in the way to stop it. And when it was once gotten thither, 'tis ea­sie to believe that indigent Men or flatterers would be found to comply with it. For how can you think that such Men in such an Age would resist the strong Temptations of a Court, and not resign up Truth and their own Consciences as a composition for their Crimes, or as a price for their Preferments, the Popes having now got so much power into their hands? Besides the Priests might easily foresee what a prositable Errour this would prove in time; what Authority they would hereby gain over people, and how easily they might have their Purses and Con­sciences at Command: For what will not Men do, to have the very Body of their Saviour put into their Mouths? And when a Priest hath his Penitent at his knee, he must needs have full power over him, if he can make him believe that he hath his God in his hand too.

For these and the like Reasons, the Paschasian Opi­nion of the Corporal Presence stole about, without meeting with any publick opposition in this Age, wherein there was such a great scarcity of Writers, and a greater of Scholars.

[Page 42] Yet in all this time I do not find any footsteps of Transubstantiation. That Doctrine was grafted after­wards upon the wild conceit of Paschasius, to the great mischief of the World, that hath been poyson'd since with its very unsavoury and deadly Fruit, somewhat like that which grew upon the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the occasion of Mans Fall.

I will not dissemble with you. The most Learned and impartial Men about this time, both before and after the Tenth Century, did speak of the presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament in very high terms. But their Opinon was this; that the consecrated Bread becomes Christs Body, not by a Substantial change of the one into the other, nor by an Identity of Nature in Both (for they all held the True Body of Christ to be still in Heaven, and in Heaven only) But they conceived the Bread and the Body to be U­nited, by means of a Third Thing (that is by the Holy Spirit) whereby the Bread and the Body were United by a mysticall Consociation, and by an ineffable Conjunction; both Bread and Body remaining still di­stinct in their own proper Natures. I pray observe it: They believed (as very many of the Ancient Fathers did) that upon the Priests blessing, that Di­vine Spirit which replenisheth, and dwelleth in Christ's glorified Body in Heaven, doth also replenish the Bread and Wine at the Eucharist; and that by this mediation of the Spirit, the Holy Elements are joyned to Christ's Body by a Divine and Spiritual coadunation. Now this is a quite different thing from Transubstantiati­on; for that supposeth the matter of the Elements to be annihilated, or to pass into another Substance; whereas the Divines of former Ages believ'd no more [Page 43] but a Mystical and Spiritual Union: And howsoever they exprest themselves about the Conversion, Trans­mutation, and Transfusion of the Elements, 'tis evident they meant only the transferring of them, from a Common to a Sacramental Use, and the raising of them up from the meer condition of Earthly Crea­tures to an high degree of Divine Dignity and Ex­cellence; being now no longer bare Bread, and bare Wine, but things of a sublime Quality and Condition, the venerable Means and Instruments of Communi­cating Christ's Body and Blood to us, through the se­cret Operation of the Holy Ghost. All which is ve­ry consistent with the Church of England's Notion of Christ's Real Spiritual Presence; but is opposite to the Paschasian conceit of a gross Corporal Presence, and utterly Destructive of the later conceit of Tran­substantiation.

But to go on. In the beginning of the Eleventh Century, the Paschasian Doctrine met with fresh Opposition. For the Romish Writers themselves confess, that Leuthericus (who was Archbishop of Sens in France, Anno 1004) was a Great Stickler a­gainst it. Baronius tells us, that he fell under King Roberts displeasure for that Reason. The Writer of the Life of Pope John the Seventeenth, in one of the Tomes of the Councils, would have it, that this Leuthericus scat­ter'd Hujus tempore Leuthericus Senonensis Archiepiscopus hoeresis Berengarianae pri­mordia & semina sparsit. the Seeds of the Berengarian Heresie. And Spondanus insinuates that Fulbertus in his Epistles to Leuthericus repre­hended him for dissenting from the Catholicks in this point. But upon perusing those Epistles, as they are set out by Carolus de Villiers in the Bibliotheca Patrum, I find no such thing. Some hard words in­deed [Page 44] past upon the score of Ecclesiastical Discipline; but as to this matter I can see nothing.

Nor can I conceive how it should be so; not be­cause Fulbertus was Berengarius his Instructor, but because his Writings shew him to have been of an Opinion quite different from, nay contrary to that of Paschasius; though indeed the Romanists would fain pull him on their side, because he was of such Au­thority and Eminence in his time, so greatly admi­red, that some Dreaming Monks devis'd this plea­sant Romance of him (which some Learned Writers too, have been willing to report) that when he was Sick, the Virgin Mary was seen to come and Suckle him with Milk out of her own Breasts.

But let us be serious. This Fulbertus was Bishop of Chartres, in the Province of Leuthericus, Anno 1007. And the first thing to our purpose, which I find in his Epistle to Adeodatus is very remarkable. For ha­ving mentioned Three Things necessary to be un­derstood, whereof this is the Third, viz. what the two Sacraments of life, that is of the Lords Body and Blood, do consist of; presently he saith, that many looking on this and other things too Carnally, while they gazed on a Carnal Sense, (or, meaning) more than on the secret Mysteries of Faith, they tumbled down the precipice of a pernicious Errour. And is not this directly against the Carnal opinion of Paschasius, as well as against those who lookt upon these Mysteries as Empty things? And after he saith, because Christ was to take away into Heaven that Body which he offer'd up for us, that we might not want the help of his Body so taken away, he left us this Pledge of his Body and Blood; not the Symbol of an empty Mystery, but that which a secret Vertue invisibly works in under the visible Form of a [Page 45] Creature, the Holy Ghost joyning the True Body of Christ to it. You see Fulbertus runs clearly upon that My­stical 'Compaginante Spiritu Sancto Corpus Christi verum. Union I spake of before, which supposes the Substance and Nature both of Bread and Body to re­main still in themselves distinct.

In his Epistle ad Finardum he plainly distinguish­eth that Body which Christ took in the Virgin's Womb, from that which is in the Sacrament: And at the End of his Sermons, he tells us, that some Eat to Life, and others to Destruction; but that the Thing represented by the Sacrament is to every Man for Life only, so that he who Eateh to his Condemnation, Eat­eth not the Flesh of Christ, nor Drinks his Blood al­though he Eats and Drinks that which is the Sacrament of so great a thing. All which, how can it possibly consist with the fulsome Doctrine of a Corporal pre­sence, which supposes that very Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the Virgin to be truly, Real­ly, Substantially and materially in the Sacrament?

This last passage in Fulbertus is probably thought to have been that, which did stick so deeply in the mind of his Scholar, Berengarius: Whose famous case I am at length come to, and shall search into it impartially, though it be no small unhappiness that we must have recourse to the Writings of his pro­fest Adversaries; there being little extant which ei­ther he wrote for himself, or his Friends for him, though it was a case wherein we may be sure many Pens were at work: And so we are expresly told by Sigebort, who lived near the time of this Controver­sie, that many disputed much both in their Discourses and Writings some Contra eum (Berengarium) & pro eo multum à multis, & Verbis & Scriptis, disputatum est. Sigeb. Chron. ad an. 1051. against Berengarius, and some for him: And the Truth of this will appear in the Sequel.

[Page 46] Though some Romanists have endeavoured to op­press the Memory of Berengarius with a heavy weight of ill Characters (as 'tis usual with them in all such cases) yet several of that side have ingenu­ously acknowledg'd, that he was a most Eminent per­son in his time, not only for his great Charity, Hu­mility and Austerities of Life, but also for his great Parts and Learning. And the thing is evident, part­ly from his Dignity in the Church; for he was Archdeacon of Angers in France, intrusted with the Office of Instructing the Clergy, and of training them up in the Studies of Divinity: And partly from those great stirs which hapned in so many parts of Christendom upon his Quarrel. Not that I can imagine such hot contentions should arise in France, England, and Italy (as 'tis plain there were) purely upon the personal account of Berengarius: For it is impossible to conceive how one single Frenchman, though of the greatest Note could en­gage such distant Numbers in a common Contro­versie by any New Doctrines of his own. No, their general Concurrence with him is a plain sign, that they had a deeply radicated Love for the Ancient Truth, however it was Deprest by the then prevail­ing Patrons of the Paschasian phancy; that they were well prepared for a publick Declaration of the Truth; and that they waited only for a fair Opportunity of declaring it, and for some such Leading Man as Be­rengarius was to appear in the Head of them. So you know it was at the time of the Reformationl peo­ple had had such bitter Experience of the Spirit of Popery, that't was every where Hated, and the World was well disposed for the entertainment of Christ's Religion; so that when Luther cryed out against In­dulgences [Page 47] and Priest-craft, the cry went presently round, not so much for Luthers sake, as for the respect men had for Truth and honesty, and out of their dete­station of a Lucrative contrivance which some Popes and their fellow work men had formed to oppress the world. Thus a great part of Christendom seems to have been dispos'd in Berengarius his days, if that had been God's time for a general Reformation: But the Sins of the World were to be punish'd, and God in his Wisdom chose rather to bring good out of evil after­wards, than to prevent the evil at that time.

As to Berengarius his Principles, I must intreat you to observe, that his First opinion seems to have been, that the Bread and Wine are barely Figures and Sha­dows, without the invisible thing, if we may believe those that wrote against him, Lancfranck, Adelman­nus, Durandus of Liege, and especially Guitmund. But searching more narrowly into this point, and finding how obnoxious he was to his adversaries, who could not but object against him the sense of the whole Ca­tholick Church, his Opinion afterwards rose higher, as to this, and his settled Judgement was, That the Lancfranck de Euchar. Sa­cram. Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things, the visible Sacrament, and the Thing of the Sacrament, that is, the spiritual Body of Christ, as the Ancients themselves spake. And to this exactly agrees what Guitmund fairly said of the Berengarians, that they were divided in their positive Opinions; some of them believing that there is Berengariani multum in hoe differunt, quod alii nihil omnino de Corpore & Sanguine Domini Sacramentis istis in esse, sed tantummodo umbras hoec & figur as esse dicant. Alii verò dicunt ibi Corpus & Sanguinem Domini revera; sed latenter continueri, & ut sumi possint quodammodo (ut ita dixerim) impanari. Et hanc ipsius Berengarii sub­tiliorem esse Sententiam aiunt, Guitmund, de Veritate Euchar. lib. 1. non procul ab initio. nothing at all of the Lords Body and Bloud in the Sa­crament, but that the Sym­bols are shadows and figures only; whereas others of them [Page 48] confest the Lords Body and Blood to be there truly, but secretly, and as it were joyned with the Bread and Wine, that they may be received; which they say (saith Guitmund) is the more subtile Opinion of Berengarius himself.

So that the main of the Controversie, wherein Be­rengarius and his Party where concern'd, lay in these two Negative Points, which are now the great Points in Controversie between us, and the Church of Rome. 1. They utterly opposed the Paschasian Error of a cor­poral Presence. 2. They absolutely denied any Essen­tial change of the Nature and Substance of the Bread and Wine: For now the Evil began to swel to a very high degree: Tho I do Isti enim licet inter se diversi sint, contra nos tamen unam habent penè sententiam, & argumentis nituntur eisdem. Utrisque enim nibil de pa­ne & vino mutari essentialiter asse­runt. Id. not yet find the word used, yet the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation began now in this Age, in the 11. Century to be in­troduced, as an Additional Doctrine which some endeavoured to obtrude upon the World, because they found it impossible for them to maintain their new Paschasian conceit of a corporal Presence, without maintaining lustily this Newer fancy of a substantial change of the Sacramental Elements.

But the extream Novelty of this Opinion will easily appear from these following Considerations. 1. Car­dinal De sacr. Euch. lib. 1. cap. 1. Bellarmine, tho he seldome yields any thing that is against him, and when he doth 'tis with a sparing hand and against His own Will; yet he confesseth that Berengarius was not reputed the first Inventer of his Er­ror, as he is pleased to call it. Durandus the Bishop of Liege, who wrote against Berengari­us, Qualiter Bruno Andegaven­sis Episcopus, item Berengarius Turonensis, antiquas hoereses modernis temporibus introducen­do, &c. Durand. Ep ad Henr. 1. and was his Contemporary, reckons it among those old Heresies, which he ac­cused Bruno the Bishop of Angers, and Be­rengarius for reviving at that time. You [Page 49] must make the man allowance for the word, Herisie: It was a scolding expression which some used in those days for want of strong Arguments: But if you strip the Malice and Virulency off, the naked and true mean­ing is, that Berengarius held an Ancient opinion, and you may easily see it by comparing his last judgement with the Faith of the Ancients. 2. Tho' some pri­vate Doctors of the Roman Church strove at that time to Establish the Doctrine of the Corporal pre­sence, and to Introduce the other, of a Substantial Change of the Holy Symbols in the Eucharist, yet these Inovations were so far from being generally re­ceived, that the Writers of those times, nay on that very side, sufficently shew us, how distracted the world was about those points, and what vast numbers in several parts of Christendome sided with Berengarius. Durandus in his fierce Sanguinary Letter to Henry the first of France, call'd the Berengarian Faith, the foul reproach of his whole most Noble Kingdom. And Totius nobilis­sime regni vestri (heu nimis tur­pe) opprobium. hearing that the Berengarians defired to be heard in a publick Council, and that King Henry had sum­mon'd a Council in order to it, he disswaded him from that course, because (as he told the King) He and others were very much afraid, least the Berengari­and should come off, and so the last State of things would be worse than the first; therefore he besought the King to punish them unheard. After this Man, Guit­mund tells us, that not the Berengarians only, but se­veral others, though Enemies to the Berengarians, were very much divided in their sense about the Sa­crament; some believing the Bread and Wine to be changed in part only; others imagining, that though there should be an entire change, yet where there are un­worthy Receivers, the Sacrament Returns into Bread [Page 50] and Wine again, Some years after Algerus, speaks of Alger. Prolog. in Librum de Sacrament. no less than six different opinions about the Sacra­ment, besides that New Opinion which now begun to spread. Some held no other change to be in the Symbols, than is in the Water at Baptism. Others held such an Union between Christ and the Symbols, as is be­tween his Divinity and his Flesh. Others held a change of them to be into the Flesh and Blood not of Christ, but of some Son of Man who is acceptable unto God. O­thers believed that no change could be made by a wick­ed Priest. Others again, that though there were a change, yet it doth not continue, but that there is a re­turn into Bread and Wine; And others again, that the Sacrament is Digested, and doth Corrupt after eat­ing. All these hot Disputes, which naturally sprang out of the Bowels of a gross opinion, so full of sensible difficulties, did plainly shew it to be a quite different thing from the Faith of the Anci­ent Church, when there were none of these quar­rols because the prolysick Doctrine which Naturally brought them into the World was not then in be­ing: for had it been so, those many difficulties it necessarily yields, must have brought forth abundance of Disputes; especially in times when Men had a greater Liberty of disputing, than in Berengarius his Days, when the Pope and his party had usurped and did not stick to exercise a Tyrannical power over Princes themselves.

But of all these disagreeing parties, they that stuck to Berengarius was the most formidable Body to the innovating Faction. Sigebert shews that all France abounded with them. William of Malmesbury, though a hater of Berengarius his memory, tells us the same Malmesbur. ad an. 1087. thing; so doth Matthew Paris; and Matthew of West-minister [Page 51] faith, that Berengarius had almost corrupted (as his Language is) all the French, Italian, and En­glish. And indeed the vast endeavours the Popes u­sed to suppress the Ancient Faith, not in those Countries only, but in Germany too, plainly shews that their Innovations did not gain ground without meeting with strong opposition, how lightly soever Lanfranck and Guitmund speak of this matter, think­ing thereby to disgrace Berengarius.

3. Nay, It is very observable, as a further plain sign of the Novelty of Transubstantiation, that the very Men who were the Patrons of it found so ma­ny perplexities in bringing it to its form, that they could not agree among themselves, but spake incon­sistently, so that it cost them much time to mould the absurdity into the shape, wherein it appears now: And this I shall shew you as briefly as the Matter will give me leave, according to the Series of time: The best Key to open the whole thing, and the only way of doing right to Berengarius his Me­mory and Cause.

It being found by his Letters to Lanfranck then Abbot of Caen in Normandy, that he was against the Opinion of Paschasius, it was thought he held the Sacred Symbols to be nothing but empty Types and shadows; which, as I said, perhaps might have been his first Opinion. Hereupon, to make him an Ex­ample to all of that perswasion. Several Synods were called one after another, at Rome, and Verceil Anno 1050. under Leo the 9th besides several other Assemblies which Mabillon mentions; in some of Mabillon Ana­lect. vet. Tom. 2. p. 477. &c. which Synods Berengarius was condemned, though absent. Now to give you my free thoughts, and to be just to all parties, very probable it is, that they [Page 52] condemned him thus only upon his First supposed O­pinion, and therein indeed they seem to have been unanimous. My Reasons are these.

1. For in the Synod at Tours under Pope Victor II. Anno 1056. where and when Berengarius appeared in person, he own'd his Correct Opinion, which in common construction amounts to no more but a Citat. ab Usser desucc. & sta­tu, cap. 7. p. 201. Confession of the Real Spiritual presence, that the Bread and Wine do become not umbratically, but tru­ly the Flesh and Blood of Christ. This doth not fa­vour either Transubstantiation, or a Corporal Pre­sence, and yet this gave satisfaction, so that he was not only dismist, but kindly received into the Communi­on Guitmund. de Sacram. lib. 3. of the Roman Church, saith Guitmund.

2. Mabillon tells us of another short Confession which he saw in a Manuscript, and which is suppo­sed Mabillon Ana­lect. Tom. 2. p. 487. to have been voluntarily drawn up by Berengari­us, and presented to Gregory the 7th. Anno 1078. that the Bread is the true Body of Christ, and the Wine his true Blood Nor doth this Confession reach to the business of Transubstantiation, without strain­ing of it after a most violent manner, but only as­serts the Truth of Christ's presence in the Sacrament in opposition to a bare Type or shadow; and there­fore Mabillon himself doth acknowledg, that this Con­fession was Artificially and cunningly worded: And though all this fell short of the New Opinion then, so that it satisfied not the bigotted Men at Rome, yet it gave satisfaction to others, nay to the Pope himself, so that the Case of Berengarius was put off to further consideration another year.

Now if the matter was thus (as in all probability it was) I cannot see what hurt this doth Berengarius's Reputation, or why thy Romanists should take occasi­on [Page 53] hence to roar against him so for a perfidious and perjur'd person, when in these instances he declared his ripened and deliberate judgment, as far as the belief of a Real presence went, to which, as far as I can find, he was constant all his Life time. Nor do I see what advantage those Condemnations of him in his absence can bring to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; be­cause those Synods seem to have been so zealously con­cern'd only for the Catholick Doctrine of the real pre­sence, and to have been unanimous as to that sole point not understanding rightly the sense either of Scotus or Berengarius. For when the business was carried further from a real to a Corporal presence, and from the belief of the main Thing to a belief of the Modus; I mean, when once it came to be urged that Christ's Body is Sub­stantially and Materially in the Sacrament, and that by a Substantial Conversion of the very Nature of the Ele­ments into it; when the matter was brought to this height Berengarius's very Judges blunder'd miserably, and were much divided about it, and inconsistent with themselves. Thus we are expres­ly told by Zacharias Chrysopolita­nus Sunt nonnulli, imd forsan multi, sed vix no­tari possunt, qui cum damnato Berengario i­dem sentiant, & tamen eundem cum Ecclesia damnant. In hoc videlicet damnant eum, quia formam verborum Ecclesioe abjiciens, nuditate sermonis seandalum movebat. Non sequebatur, ut dicunt, usum scripturarum, quoe passim res significantes tanquam significatas appellant, pre­sertim in Sacramentis Zachar. Chrysopol. in concord. Evangel. lib. 4. cap. 156. BB. PP. Soec. 12. in the next Age, That there were some, yea perhaps many, who held the same Opinion with Beren­garius although they condemned him. In this thing they condemned him, that laying aside the Churches way of speaking he gave offence by his open manner of expressing himself. He did not observe the Language of Scripture, which frequently gives the Name of the thing signified to that which signifies it, especially in Sa­craments. This was the only quarrel which many had against him, who as to his Doctrine perfectly concurr'd and agreed with him. The truth is, Berengarius his [Page 54] Judges were much to seek, what to say to him, or how to deal with him, when he appeared personally before them. Of which we have two plain instances in Two Synods at Rome, the one under Nicolas the Second An­no 1059. the other under Gregory the 7th in February 1079.

The first of these two Synods was called chiefly a­bout the Election of Popes, and against Simony, which was then a great Trade at Rome. Thither Berengarius was summon'd; and there he defended himself with such irrosistible Evidence of truth against a material change in the Nicolaus Papa comperiens te docere panem vinumque altaris post Consecrationem sine ma­teriali mutatione in pristinis essentiis rema­nere, concessâ tibi respondendi licentid, &c. Lankfranc. de Euchar. adv. Berengarium, Eique (Berengario) cum nullus valeret obsistere, Albericus evocatur ad Synodum, &c. Leo Osti­ensis in Chronic. Cassinens. lib. 3. c. 33. Sacrament, that he quite confoun­ded the whole Synod though it consisted of no less than 113 Bi­shops. Not a man of them had a word to say against his Argu­ments; so that they were forced to send for Albericus, a Cardinal Deacon, and a man of great reputation for his Learning: But he was so confounded too, that he desi­red a Weeks time to write against Berengarius. Lan­franck (who relates things partially, as the modern Ro­manists have done after him) not only omits the main of this story, but falsifies one part of it, as if Berenga­rius had not answer'd for himself, though the Pope had given him leave: Whereas Leo Ostiensis, who lived a­bout that time relates the particulars of the story; and Sigonius confirms it; nay Guitmund himself, though a bitter Adversary to Berengarius, owns there was a con­flict in that Synod: All which the Learned Bishop Ush­er De succes. & statu cap. 7. has noted to my hands.

'Tis true, after all this Berenga­rius Elegisti-palam atque in audientia Sancti Concilii orthodoxam fidem non amore veritatis, sed timore mortis confiteri. Lanfrane. de Eu­char. in initio. recanted in that Synod meerly for fear of Death: An Argument that even great Men are subject [Page 55] to humane srailty, especially in extremity of danger, tho' the scandal of his complyance falls upon that cause; which needed Fire and Faggot for its last Argument, and an Executioner instead of a Disputant to bring it to a Conclusion. But observe, what a Blunder these Men com­mitted in this their Sanguinary attempt on behalf of the New Opinion. Humbertus was order'd by the Pope to draw up the Form of a Confession; the Synod ap­proved it; and poor Berengarius to save his Life was forced to subscribe it: Now the Confession was this in short, That the Bread and Wine which are set upon the Altar, after Consentio autem sanctoe Romanoe Ecclesioe—scilicet Panem & Vinum quoe in altari ponun­tur, post Consecrationem non solum Sacramentum, sed etiam verum Corpus & Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, & sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. Lansranc. Alger. & alii multi. Consecration are not only the Sacra­ment, but also the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; that (this true Body) is sensually not only in the Sacrament, but in Truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priests, and ground or torn, by the Teeth of the Faithful. This was very harsh; for it renders Christ liable to New Suffe­rings every day, it is inconsistent with the finer Notion of the presence of Christ's Body after the manner of a Spirit, it introduces such a crass sort of Eating as our Saviour rebuked the Capernaites for thinking of; it makes us to be not only Eaters of a Sacrament, but in very Truth Eaters of Mans Flesh. Therefore the pre­sent Church of Rome will not stand to these Expressions; divers of her Doctors formerly have renounced this de­finition as erronous and absurd, though it was made by the Pope in Cathedra and in a publick Synod, the bold­est Writers have been lamentably put to it how to give it a Tolerable construction: The Glossator upon the de­crees confesseth, that if it be not understood in a sound sense, it leads into a greater Heresie, than what Berenga­rius himself was charged with. But the Doctrine being a [Page 56] Novelty, they knew not as yet how to express it wari­ly enough. Caution comes by experience, and 'tis the meeting with objections that puts men upon a necessity of digesting their Notions better; therefore it is no wonder that the conceits of these Men were crude, be­cause they were not yet throughly consider'd and dis­puted. As time and debates shew'd them their Errour, so they became sensible and asham'd of it. For tho' Guitmund endeavour'd to desend those raw Expressions, and with the coursest and boldest Explications that I e­ver read, yet all he could do, could not make the thing palateable; the very men of those times that were con­cern'd for the New Opinion took distaste at the defini­tion, as appears by this. For at the next Synod at Rome under Gregory the Seventh, twenty years after when Be­rengarius was summon'd again, and another Confession was prepared for him to subscribe, this foul Notion of sensually handling, breaking, and grinding the true body of Christ was quite dropt; nor was a word of it mention'd; but the Doctrine they compell'd him to sign by fright­ning the poor Old Man with Death, was this, That the Bread and Wine which are set upon the Altar are sub­stantially converted into the true and proper and quickning Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and after Conse­cration are the true Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, and which was offer'd up upon the Cross for the Salvation of the World, and which sits at the right hand of the Father, &c. Here was the Paschasian Opinion im­proved now at length into Transubstantiation; and this they thought was a Correct Confession, not liable to so many Objections as they found that was which had been contrived by Pope Nicolas.

But yet it is observable, that before this New Cunfessi­on was drawn up, it is acknowledged by the Romanists themselves that there were very warm disputes in [Page 57] this Synod, and that not so much about the wording of the Confession, as about the Opinion it self; many of them believing one thing and some another. The greatest part of them affirmed the Bread and Wine after Concil. Rom. sub Greg. 7. consecration to be Substantially changed into that Body of our Lord which was born of the Virgin: but some endeav. oured to maintain that it is a Figure only, &c. Indeed this party was over power'd by the other; neverthe­less it plainly appears, that neither the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, nor that of the Corporal presence prevailed so yet, but that there were several in this Synod who believed neither. Nay, tho some late Romanists have had the confidence to deny it, I see no reason we have to discredit those who have positively affirmed, that Pope Gregory himself doubted much in this point. Engelbert Archbishop of Treves (as Sever­ral of our Authors have observed) consesseth, that this Gregory questioned whether that which is received at the Lords Table be the True body and bloud of Christ. Car­dinal Benno who wrote the life of this Gregory tells us (and the Romanists themselves own the Book to be genuine) that he commanded all the Cardinals to keep a strict Fast, to beg of God that he would shew by some Signe, whether the Church of Rome or Berengarius were in the right opinion touching the body of our Lord in the Sacrament. Nay Conradus the Abbot of Ursperg re­lates, how that Synod which began at Mentz and was Vide Concil. Brixien. Anno 1080. apud Bi­nium. removed to Brescia Anno 1080 deposed this Gregory, as for many other things, so for this in particular, be­cause he called in question the Catholick and Apostolick faith concerning the body of our Lord, and was an old dis­ciple of the Heretick Berengarius (as they were pleas'd to speak.) To all which the sticklers for Transub­stantiation have nothing to say, but this, that these are lies and calumnies invented by Benno and Conradus; [Page 58] which is a sensless shift, and the same thing in effect as if they told us, they are resolved to contradict mat­ter of fact though it be related by their own party, and disown every thing that hurts their cause, or but touches the credit of any one of their Popes, though he were a very wicked wretch, as every one knows this Pope Gregory, or Hildebrand was.

Mr. Allix hath lately given us a passage out of a Manuscript piece of this Hildebrands now in the Libera­ry at Lambeth, which is enough to put the matter out of controversie, and to justifie these allegations: his Proefat. ad de­terminat. Joan. Paris. pag. 7. Cum autem Panis & Vi­num dicantur a cunctis Sanctis, & a fidelibus creditur transi­re in Substanti­am Corporis & Sanguinis Chri­sti, quâ fit illa conversio, an for­malis an Sub­stantialis quere solet? Quod au­tem formalis non fit, manife­stum est, quod forma Panis & Vini remanet. Utrum vero sit Substantialis; perspicuum non est. words are these, That whereas (says he) the Bread and Wine are said to pass into the substance of Christs Body and Blood, a question is wont to arise, how this conversion is made, whether it be a Formal or a Substantial change? That it is not a formal one is manifest, because the form of Bread and Wine remains: But whether it be a Substantial one, is not manifest. I know some subtle notions and seem­ing inconsistences do follow there, which may puzzle a Reader how to understand them: But what can any man gather from these words (whether it be a Substan­tial change, is not manifest) but this, that there were in this Pope Gregory's time several questions about the change in the Sacrament, and that he himself was not able to resolve them, but was inclined to believe, that the change is not Substantial.

That I cannot give you a more perfect and exact account of all the particulars relating to this Synod and this Pope, is, because some have been very careful to suppress them, and have given us no other account of them than what they pleas'd themselves. And in­deed the Age wherein these things were transacted was so barbarous, and the Books I have searched are of that sort, that no man would willingly moyl in such a bar­ren study, but out of an earnest desire to pick out what [Page 59] matter of Fast he could, and to digest it right: which is the only business before me now in tracing the do­ctrine of Transubstantion. And upon the whole you cannot but easily disern, what shifts the Patrons of it were put to, what Arts they were forced to use, what perplexities they found in their way, what Heats and distractions hapned among them, before they could make it be belived in the Roman Church her self, tho' in times that were not only scandalous for Ignorance, and consequently very Receptive of the grossest Er­rours; but Infamous also for all those many violences and oppressions, which commonly attend a blind Zeal. Many even of the Church of Rome verily thought that then the Divel was let loose, and that prediction fulfilled Apocal. 20. that after the expiation of a thou­sand years Satan should be loosed out of his Prison, and should go about to deceive the Nations which are in the four quarters of the Earth. Such commotions and con­vulsions then hapned in the world, especially in the Papacy of this Gregory, as if the Prince were come a broad with stormes and tempsts to mingle Heaven and Earth together. This was the Pope of whom such Horrid, yet true Characters were given by some of the very Romish Communion, that it would weary one to transcribe but the half part. The Pope who decreed, that the Bishop of Rome alone is to be called Universal; that He alone can depose all Bishops, that Vidr Registir. Gregor. 7. lib. 2. He only can use the Imperial Arms that all Princes are to kiss his feet, that 'tis Lawful for him to depose Emperors, that an unlimited power of Ordination is in him, that no Synod may be called a general Council without his command, that no Chapter nor Book is to be acounted canonical with­out his Authority, that there is no appeal from his Sen­tence, that he can be judged by none, that the Roman Church never did, never can Err, that by his leave Sub­jects [Page 60] may call their Princes to account, that be can absolve Subjects from their Allegiance, and the like.

Notwithstanding all these terrible usurpations many were Thunder-proof still. One Synod at Worms con­demn'd the Pope, another at Pavia excommunicated him; a third at Brescia deposed him. Setting aside those Flat­terers at the Court of Rome, who did not stick to prostitute their Consciences to their Interest and Am­bition: men of all ranks, orders, and degrees made the world ring with their out-cries. Princes began now to resist the Pope, being too late sensible, that what power their excessive zeal had given him, he armed himself with against his over kind Benefactors, so that there was no such Enemy to Crowns, as the Tripple Diadem: the Bishops finding themselves robb'd of their just authority, by one Usurper, opposed him to his Face. The whole considerate world Groan'd and Wept for the abominations in Babylon, complain'd of the Errours and Corruption which had crept into the Church, longed for a Redress of abuses, and would fain have had a Reformation, but could not obtain it, being hindred by a potent Faction, who should have Cured the Common Disease, but were themselves the greatest Plague.

Among other Innovations, the New Doctrine of the Sacrament was still opposed. For to go on: Tho' Berengarius died about nine years after the Synod at Rome, yet the Truth expired not with him. I confess in the Twelfth Century the word Transubstantiation was used by Stephen who was Bishop of Autun in Bur­gundy, about Anno 1120 and as far as I can yet find, the First that used it. And it is no wonder if the Doctrine which went along with it found entertainment, when it was sent abroad by those, whose Favour some were willing to expect, and whose displeasure all had Rea­son [Page 61] to be afraid of. Nevertheless it made not such a progress, but that divers Men of Note had the Heart and Honesty to oppose it still; I mean in the Western Churches; for to other Countries it was as yet perfect­ly a stranger, whatever some have vainly pretended to the contrary.

Several of Our Writers have so critically observed the variety of Opinions about the Sacrament in this Age, that I cannot hope to discover any thing New to Men of such sort of Learning; nor indeed do they need it. For your sake therefore who may not be so well ac­quainted with the state of those times, I shall content my self in giving you a Concise account of it, as a Col­lector for the most part, or rather as an Abbreviator of what has been already Noted by others, whose Books have not been yet answer'd, that I know of.

Heriger Abbot of Lobes in Germany, who dyed in the beginning of this Twelfth Century, gather'd together many things which had been written by Catholick Fathers Sigebert. de Script. Excles. of the body and blood of Christ against Paschasius Rat­bertus. Thuanus in his Epistle Dedicatory to Hen. the Fourth tells him, that Bruno Archbishop of Treves ex­pelled several Berengarians out of Liege, Antwerp and o­ther places thereabouts; and that this was Anno 1106. (for so Bishop Usher and Abbertine say it should be read, because Bruno was not Archbishop there till after Usher de suc­cess & Stat. c. 7. Abbert. de Euchar. p. 959. the year 1106) Rupertus Abbot of Deutsch in Germany about Anno 1110 is acknowledg'd by several Roma­nists themselves to have been for the mystical Union I spake of before, against Transubstantiation and the Corporal Presence; and the thing is clear out of divers places in his Writings. Honorius of Augustodunum a­bout Anno 1120 is charged by Thomas Waldensis (under the Character of the Author de Officiis) for a Favourer of Berengarius his Doctrine, and one of Rabanus his Sive gemma a­nimoe ext. in BB. PP. [Page 60] Bread Eaters. Algerus who Flourisht Anno 1130 (a Man so cryed up by the Romanists, for Writing against Berengarius, and for Transubstantiation) reckons up, as Prolog. ad Li­br. de Sacram. I Noted before, Six several Opinions about the Sacra­ment that were common in his time, besides that which he held himself. And, as I observed too, Zacharias Chry­sopolitanus, who was towards the year 1160. tells us, that there were some, perhaps many, who then held Beren­garius his Opinion, though they blamed him for his Ʋnscrip­tural and Ʋncommon way of expressing himself. Si autem quae­ritur, qualis sit illa conversio: An formalis, an Substantialis, an alterius ge­neris? Definire non sufficio. P. Lombard. Sen­tentiar. lib 4. dist. 11. Peter Lombard about the same time, having reckon'd up vari­ous Doctrines about this matter, and among the rest that against Transubstantiation in particular, though he himself held the Corporal Presence, yet as to the questi­on about the Change of the Symbols, he plainly con­fest, as Gregory the Seventh had done, that he could not tell whether it be Substantial, or a change of another Nature.

But that which convinceth me more, that the Op­posers of the New Opinion were very numerous and formidable at this time is, because the Court of Rome began presently after this to use Terrible and Outragious Methods against them, and for many years together carried on these Methods with a very quick Hand: Which as it shews plainly that other Arguments failed them now, and that they had no security left them but downright Violence, and Oppression; so it shews too what great Fears they were under, least the Old Opinion should prevail again, notwithstanding all their endea­vours hitherto. Witness their proceedings against the Albigenses; of whom I may hereafter give you a saith­ful Account; but at present it shall be sufficient for me to tell you from some of the Romanists themselves that they were such a sort of people as were afterwards upon the Resormation called Protestants. All that dis­claimed [Page 61] the Corruptions, or dissented from the Errours of the Church of Rome in those days, were compre­hended Petrus Cisterci­ensis Monachus, qui de Albigen­sibus visa ex­plorataque in historiam retu­lit, Innocentio tertio Pontifici dicatam, Here­ticos Tolosates, atque aliarum Ʋrbium & oppidorum, eorumque protectores communi nomine Albigenses vocari consuevisse ait ab usu loquentium, Marian. Prefat. ad Lucan. Tudens. under the Common Name of the Albigenses. The Numbers of them were so vast, that Ferè enim nulla est terra, in quâ haec secta non sit. Reinet. cont. Wald. c. 4. Reinerus their Persecutor ingenuously confest, there was hardly any Nation, wherein this Sect (as he call'd them) was not. Let us now take a short view of the proceedings against them.

In the time of Alexander the Third Anno 1163. a Synod met at Tours in France chiefly against the Empe­ror Frederick and Victor the Anti-Pope; in which Sy­nod a Canon was made against the Albigenses, that no Man should dare under the dreadful pain of an Anathema Can. 4. to allow them House or Harbour, or have any Commerce with them, or shew them any kind of Humanity. The rea­son of this severity was grounded on strong jealousies they had of the dangers that might come from the great growth of these Albigensis; whose Heresie (as they said in the beginning of that Canon) had spread like a gan­grene from Tolouse and the parts about it, through Gas coygny and several other Provinces. Anno 1170. a certain Usser de succes. & stat. p. 240. Cardinal was sent into the Province of Tolouse to sup­press them by force of Arms. This course failing ano­ther Synod in France was held against them. Anno 1176. which Binius calls a Gallican Council indefinitely; but Labbey specifies the place, calling it Concilium Lumbari­ense, or a Synod at Lombers, in the Archbishoprick of Tolouse.

In this Age infinite Num­bers Quippe in latissimis Galliae, Hispaniae, Italiae, Ger­maniae (que) Provinciis tam multi hâc peste (Publicano­rum) infecti esse dicuntur, ut secundum Prophetam, multiplicate esse super numerum arenae videbantur. Guil. Novoburg. a clar. Usserio citat. de success. cap. 8. p. 238. of Christians, in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and En­gland made Publick professi­on [Page 64] of the Old Faith against Transubstantiation; tho they were called by several Names, for several Reasons; as the Albigenses, Catharists, Leonists, Publicans, Pata­rens, and divers Names more, which their Enemies fixt upon them. But chiefly they abounded in the Southern Parts of France: And seeing Force and open Violence had hitherto had very little Success against them, at last they were Quia in Gas­conia, Albige­sio & partibus Tolosanis & a­liis lecis, ita Hereticorum, quos alii Ca­tharos, alii Pa­trinos, alii Pub­licanos, alii a­liis Nominibus vocant invaluit damnata per­versitas, ut jam non in occulto, si­cut alibi ne­quitiam suam exerceant, sed errores suos pub­licam manife­stent, & ad consensum suum simplices, attrahant & infirmos; eas & defensores corum & receptares Anathema decernimus sub­jacere. Concil. Lateran. Can 27. Anathematiz'd by Pope Alexander the Third and his party Anno 1179. in the Lateran Council at Rome. But being neither daunted nor frightned at this Thunderbolt, one Henricus a Papa Alexandro missus fuit in Gasconiam, ad delendam hereticorum perfidiam altaris Sacramentum non credentium. Gucl. Nungiac.— Qui predicationis verbo militum peditumque copias undicunque contraxit praefatosque haereticos expugnavit. Verùm id frustrà. Nam ut sui compotes facti sunt, se in erroris pristini volutabro revolverunt. Robert. Altissiordor. citat. ab Us­ser. ibid p. 244. Henry, before Abbot of Clairvoux and now a Cardinal, was sent by the Pope into Gas­coigny against them Anno 1181. where he over-powred them indeed by his grear Army; but to no purpose; for assoon as they were got out of his Clutches, they openly profest their Faith again. Anno 1182. a great many of these poor people were burnt in several Parts of France; and applications were made to Hen. the Se­cond (under pretence of a Vision) that he would do the same thing in England: But he would not suffer it to be done in his Country, though there were abundance of that perswasion there, saith Tempus vero ne quo haec visio contigerat, erat tunc quando Publicani comturebantur in quam plu­ribus locis per regnum Franciae, quod Rex (Henricus) nullo modo fieri permisit in terra sua, licet ibi essent perplurimi. Roger. de Hoveden. in fine Anni 1182. Hoveden.

It is no great honour to the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation, that when it came into the world it soon cost Bloud; nor could it prevail till the party which upheld it made its way by Fire and Sword. The truths of Christianity were not propagated by such barbarous [Page 65] methods; for there is such a natural lovelyness in Truth, as renders it worthy of all acceptation? and so much the more, for not standing in need of Sanguinary pro­ceedings. But error is not easily supported any other way; and 'tis a sign of a false Doctrine, when it must be forced upon the conscience by cutting of throats. However the Persecutions that were now, did this good, that the true Faith was confirmed by New Martyrdomes; and recovered some of that Lustre under butchering Popes, which Christianity had gained under Nero.

Lucius the Third was now Pope, who in the year 1183 (as Ad abolendum diversarum haeresum pravitae­tem, quae in plerisque mundi partibus modernis caepit temporibus pullulare, &c— Imprimis Ca­tharos & Patarenos & eos qui se Humiliatos vel Pauperes de Lugduno falso nomine menti­untur, Passaginos, Josepinos, Arnaldistas, perpe­tuo decernimus Anathemati subjacere. Lucii 3. Decret. Labbaei Concil. Tom. 10. L'abbey computes it) issued out another Anathema, for the abo­lishing of divers Heresies (so called) which in those times grew in most parts of the World; and he particularly mention'd the Catharists, the Patarens, and those that were called the Humble Men, or the Poor of Lions; that is, the Albigenses, who stifly opposed, among other Errors, that of Transubstantiation. One Outward Advantage which did help to make them so very Numerous and Spreading was the Protection they found from divers Princes and Great Men, parti­cularly Raymund Earl of Tolouse, and Peter King of A­ragon, as Nec mirum tam latè eam labem fuisse dif­fusam, cum Al­bigensium secta a primo exortu principium vi­vorum (quae magna Pernici­es est) favore fuerit armata: Tolosatis primi Comitis, deinde Fuxensis, Biterarum & Convenarum. Accessit Petri Aragoniae regis patrocinium. Joan. Marian. praefat. ad Lucum. Tùdensem. Vide & Concil Lavaurese An­no 1214. Item Math. Paris in Joanne. Joannes Mariana doth confess: And with this agrees the Account given of this matter by the Inge­nuous Thuan Hist. lib. 6. ad An. 1550. Thuanus. Citat. in C [...] ­tal Test. pag. 1526. Jacobus de Rebira, the French Kings Secretary, adds, that they were in great Esteem, above the ordinary Priests, for Wit and Learning that they were Honoured by their very Enemies; that they were freed from common Burdens and Impositions; and that every ones safety seem'd to have been wrapped up in Theirs.

[Page 66] The growing interest, and great strength, which the Adversaries of Transubstantiation now had inraged the Court of Rome so, that in the Papacy of Innocent the Third they were forced to the most extream, but most dishonourable shists: And even when they had so much business in their Hands about the recovering of Palestine from the Turks. The Heresie at Tolouse being so increased Non enim dis­ceptationibus verborum tan­tùm, verùm eti­am armis opus fuit; adeò ino­leverat tanta haeresis (apud Tolosani.) Pla­tina in vitâ Innocentii 3. (saith Platina) there was need, not of Disputations, but of Arms too. And the Zealots for Transubstantiatiation had now got a Tool for their turn at Rome; this Innocent the Third, made Pope Anno 1198. a young Man, about Thirty years of Age, Hot, Fierce, Imperious, and (as far as I find by his Speeches in the Lateran) Ignorant enough. This youngster soon laid about him, and rai­sed a long and bloody War against the Albigenses. Thu­anus in his Sixth Book shews particularly, what outra­ges his General Simon Montfort committed in several places of France, Hanging, Beheading, Burning, and making the most horrible Slaughters wherever he went; throwing into the Flames at Paris several Priests too, that were of the Albigenses perswasion. The way of dealing with them in England was, to burn them in the Shoulders or Foreheads with a Red Hot Iron: And the same Author shews you, how the Pope used the Earl of Tolouse, and the King of Aragon also. And Bi­nius Binii notae in Concil. Lateran. tells us, out of Mathew Paris, how that the Earldome of Tolouse was given to Montfort for almost twelve years service against the Albigenses, after the War against them had been first begun by Pope Innocent: As great a War saith Thuanus, as that was which was raised against the Thuan. Praefat. Saracens: But, as he ingenuously acknowledgeth the Result of the War was this, that great Numbers of the Albigenses were Kill'd, Routed, Stript of their Estates and Dignities, and scatter'd up and down into several quarters, but not convinced by these outrageous Courses.

[Page 67] After all which, Anno 1215 (the year before God took this Bloody Pope out of the World) that Great Council met at the Lateran, wherein the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was decreed in express Terms.

It had been a wonder indeed, if at last one poor De­cree could not have been got for the establishing of it, after so many years had been spent in Arts and Vio­lence first to form it, and then to bring it to some perfection. Yet I must desire you to note, that this Decree was the Pope's only, not Venère multa tum quidem in consultationem, nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit. Pla­tina de vita Innocent. 3. —Facto prius ab ipso Papa exhortationis ser­mone, recitata sunt in pleno Concilio capitula 70. quae aliis placabilia, aliis videbantur Onerosa. Math. Par. in Joanne ad Ann. 1215. the Councils. Platina tells us, that nothing was openly Decreed by this Council, though many things were proposed to their consideration. And Mathew Paris assures us, that the Pope having made a Speech to them, Seventy Chapters or Heads (which now are called the Decrees of that Coun­cil) were read before them, which were acceptable to some, but seemed burdensome to others. 'Tis plain, that there are no Acts of this Council extant, which shew in the least, that any of the things proposed were so much as debated; but the Council rose before they had con­sider'd matters, or came to any Solemn Conclusion af­ter a Synodical manner. The Reasons of it seem to have been, partly because there were then Wars in I­taly (as Platina and others relate) which extreamly frightned that Pope, and partly too, because some of the Council were dissatisfied as to the Reasonableness of the Popes Proposals (as Mathew Paris well observed) and it seems not improbable, but that they might be dissatisfied as to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in particular. I will not be positive in this, but leave it to be consider'd by Learned Men: But the ground of my Conjecture is this, because Sabellicus speaking of this Lateran Council expressy affirms, that at that ve­ry [Page 68] time the pestilent Heresie of the Sunt & Crucigeri Lateranensi conventu probati supremo Innocentii Anno, qui salutis fuit humanae duodecies centesimus ac quintus decimus, quum pestilen; esset Romae Haeresis orta, mag­nusque ex ea motus extitisset, multi qui tum fortè in urbe erant, cruce signati, in Syram, credo, ituri, aut certè inde reversi, Innocentii hortatu pestem illam in horas gliscentem naviter extinaeerunt; quidam Albiensem ab autore, ut reor, eam nuncuparunt Haeresim. Sabellic. Aene­ad. 9. lib. 6. p. 736. edit. Basil. Albigenses (as he terms it) ap­pear'd at Rome, and that a great Commotion hapned there upon it, which the Pope was forced to put an End by the help of the Cruci­geri, that is, a sort of Souldiers that had listed themselves under the Sign of the Cross for an Ex­pedition into the Holy Land. And if it were thus, as very likely it was, 'tis no wonder that the Pope and his great Council should break up in some haste. If you ask, how it might come to pass, that the Popes Decrees were not publickly opposed while the Council was yet sitting? The Reason is evident enough. This Innocent was a most Proud, Insolent, Cruel Man: One that had deposed I know not how many Bishops, that had deprived Otho the Emperour of the Romans, that had huff'd Henry the Emperour of Constantinople, that had Excommunicated King John of England; that had arrogantly treated the Kings of Bohemia, Portugal, Sici­ly, France and Aragon; that had robb'd the Earl of To­louse of all his Possessions; that had Barbarously used the Albigenses by the flashing and burning Zeal of the Crucigeri; and that now, in the time of the Lateran Council, was strengthned at Rome with Great Num­bers of them, ready to do any mischief that he should command them. And then, how could it be expect­ed, but that the whole Council would be over-awed into silence, supposing any of them were against the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation? Especially if you consi­der, that in the Third Head of his Proposals he had Condemned all Hereticks, all that were but suspected of Heresie, all that shew'd any Humanity to Here­ticks; not excepting Princes themselves, over whom [Page 69] he claimed a Power, and declared his purposes not on­ly to Excommunicate them, but moreover to absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance, and to give away their Territories.

By this it appears, what little Reason our Romanists have to pretend the Authority of this Lateran Coun­cil for their beloved Transubstantiation, and how little they gain by it upon a strict Examination of the mat­ter. After all the Arts and Toyl of so many years to bring this strange conceit into some shape, and to Cure those Flaws which all discerning and upright Men found in the formation of it: After such various Me­thods used to get a Decree for it, and to obtrude it up­on an easie World in times of Ignorance: After so ma­ny Hostile and Barbarous Courses practiced in several Parts of Christendome upon those who saw the false­hood of it, and would not submit to the Innovation: After so much Blood shed, and so many Lives taken a­way in that unjust Cause: The Patrons of it having got at length a promising opportunity of settling it in this Great Council at Rome, and under the awe of a most Heady and Insolent Pope, they providentially mist of their designs at last. In Rome it self many op­posed it with Rage, probably divers of the Council did not at all like it; to be sure they rose without confir­ming it by a Synodical Decree; so that it had no Au­thority but the Pope's own, and that Pope's too, who warranted Rebellion and Treason in Subjects, and made it the great business and Delight of his own Life du­ring his Papacy.

But Threats would not do the work yet. For Mat­thew Math. Par. in Hen. 2. ad An. 1223. Paris tells us, that Anno 1223 the Albigenses chose one Bartholomaeus their Anti-Pope, in Bulgary, Croatia, Dalmatia, and those parts about Hungary; where their Opinion prevailed so, that many Bishops and others a­greed [Page 70] with them. Moreover, that Anno 1234. they had Bishops of their perswasion in Spain, and that an infinite Number of them was kill'd in Alemannia in Germany the same year. Besides, the Writings of Lucus Iudensis about Anno 1240. and of Petrus Pilichdorfius a­bout Anno 1450. both against the Albigenses, do plain­ly shew, that notwithstanding the Decree of Innocent the Third, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was still vigorously resisted in very many places of the World, and even where the Church of Rome carried great Au­thority. But I must not forget a memorable Story of Guido Grossus, Archbishop of Narbonne Anno 1268. be­cause it shews, how little He and the Divines at Paris then hearkned to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, notwithstanding all that had been done by Pope Nico­las the Second, Gregory the Seventh, and Innocent the Third; and when you have consider'd it well, I leave you to judge too by the way, whether the judgment of the Popes, tho' in Council, was in those days thought Infallible.

Guido Grossus going to see Pope Clement the Fourth, his Old familiar acquaintance, and discoursing in his Court with a certain Learned person, could not forbear declaring his sense about the Eucharist, which was di­rectly repugnant to Transubstantiation. For his Opini­on was that the Body of our Lord is not essentially in the Eucharist, but only as the thing signified is under the sign: To which it seems he added, that this was the Celebra­ted Opinion at Paris. After Guido's return home, Cle­mens heard of this, and wrote him a chiding Letter, wherein he insinuated also, that if he persitted in that Opinion, he would be in danger of losing his Dignity De Euchar. lib. 3. P. 973. and Office: This Letter the Learned Albertinus hath gi­ven us a Copy of out of a Manuscript in Pope Clement's Register; and the thing is further attested by Monsieur [Page 71] I Arroque in his History of the Eucharist, lately rendred into English, and just fallen into my hands, where you may see it at large; though the principal part of it is, what I have already related. I add out of both; that though the Archbishop answer'd the Popes Letter with some Caution and Fear, yet in his Answer he said e­nough to clear and justifie his own Opinion against Tran­substantiation. For saith he, the Body of Christ is so called Four ways. 1. In respect of Similitude; as the Species of Bread and Wine, and that improperly 2. It is taken for the Material Flesh of Jesus Christ, which was taken of the Blessed Virgin: And this signification is proper. 3. For the Church, in regard of its Mysti­cal Union (with Christ.) 4. For the Spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ, which is Meat indeed; And it is said of those who Eat this Flesh Spiritually, that they do re­ceive the Truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour, which, as it overthrows the Dream of Transubstantia­tion, so it is the very Language of the Ancients, Cle­mens Alexandrinus, S. Jerome, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, and others, who did distinguish Christ's Natural Body which was of the Virgin, from that Spiritual Body which is receiv'd at the Eucharist; as you may see plain­ly in that excellent little Book called the DIALLAC­TICON, which God be thanked is now reprinted at Lon­don. A Book written as Bishop Cosins tells us, by Dr. Poinet Bishop of Winchester a little before Bishop Jewels Apology came out. Cassander and other Divines abroad Extolled it deservedly. The late Sa. Oxon (if I may rank him among such Company) takes notice of it; but P. 61. says withal, I have not the Book by me: And I verily believe it; for had he ever seen or read that Book, I am apt to think he would hardly have wrote his own; at least, not that part of it; the force whereof is quite destroy'd by the Diallacticon.

[Page 72] But not to digress further, especially when I am near the End of my business. Though in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries Transubstantiation was the common Tenent, yet I cannot find that it past in those times for a certain Article of Faith determined by the Publick Authority of the Church, but as a probable Opinion only, as they thought then. Those many difficult Conse­quences (about Eating, Digesting, Voiding the Sacra­ment, whether by Men or Beasts, and the like) which the subtle Schoolmen met with in managing that Opi­nion, do plainly shew that the thing was not yet clear­ed beyond all Reason of doubting, nor setled by any Authority, which might be presumed sufficient to require their submission. It is well known, that the Famous Doctor of Sorbon Johannes Parisicnsis near the Vide determi­nat. Joan. edit. Londin. 1686. year 1300. though he profest to hold Transubstantia­tion, yet he held it only as a current Opinion; he was so far from urging it as an Article of Faith, that he proposed another way of explaining the real presence, viz. that Mystical Union of the Sacred Symbols with Christ's person, which Rupertus and others had spoke of long In praesentia Collegii Magistrorum in Theologia dictum est, utrumque modum poneudi Corpus Christi esse in altari, tenet pro Opinione probabi­li, & approbat utrumque per—& dicta Sancto­rum. Dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam, & ideo nullum cadere sub fide; & si aliter dixisset, minus benè dixisset, & qui alitur dieunt, minus bene dicunt, & qui deter­minate assereret alterutrum proecisè cadere sub fi­de, incur reret sententiam Canonis, vel Anathe­matis. Censura Facultatis Theologioe, Paris. before. And when the Doctors of Divinity at Paris had Exa­mined his determination, they gave this Censure of him at the End of it, ‘that he had done well in delivering both as pro­bable Opinions, not so deter­min'd by the Church as to be thought either of them an Ar­ticle of Faith: and (say they) if he had said other­wise, he would not have said so well; and they who do speak otherwise speak amiss, and whosoever shall peremptorily assert either Opinion to be precisely of Faith ought to incur the Sentence of the Canon, or Excommunication.’

[Page 73] I shall not need to trouble you with more Observa­tions, how the opposite Doctrine to Transubstantiation passed on still through a crowd of Adversaries down to the times of the Reformation, which began presently after Anno 1500. You find ready at hand, in the Trea­tise of Transubstantiation I mentioned before, in Bi­shop Cosins, Albertine, and l'Arroque (not to speak of any more) not only the Names of some particular per­sons, but an account too of Great Numbers of people in Bohemia, France, England, &c. Who notwithstand­ing all Threats and Oppressions persisted still in the True Faith, and transmitted it down to Posterity. I shall only add, what the Learned Monsieur Alixius (now in England) hath particularly proved in his Pre­face to the Determination of Joannes Parisiensis; that though the Doctrine of Transubstantiation prevailed a­mong the fantastical School-men from time to time, yet they found so many perplexities in it, as did put all the Wits they had upon the Tenters; the most sedate and intelligent Men among them own'd it only as an Opinion they had receiv'd by Tradition, not as an Arti­cle of Faith declared by any Authentick and Obligato­ry Decrees of the Church: And being a common Opi­nion they would not contradict it; though some of them affirm'd, that the Permanency of the Substance of the Bread and Wine is not impossible, nor contrary to Reason or to the Authority of the Bible; nay, that it was the most Rational Opinion so that had they been Popes, they would have defined it. As for the definitions of Nicolas the Second, and Gregory the Seventh, they could not see how those did inforce the belief of the Annihilation of the Sub­stances of the Elements; but of a Substantial Presence only, which they thought might easily be admitted, though Permanency of the Substance in the Symbols [Page 74] should be believed too. As for the Decree of Innocent the Third, they laid no great weight upon it, because it was not the deliberate and Synodical determination of the whole Council, and I would sain know, whether our present Romanists will insist upon the Authority of it, seeing it asserts with a Witness the Deposing Power; which the Gallican Clergy did Anno 1682. Condemn, as Erroneous, and Injurious to Princes. As for the Coun­cil of Constance which Condemned Wicleffe for denying the Corporal presence and Transubstantiation An. 1415. it was ever thought by many Romanists themselves to be of questionable Authority, because it Condemned and Deposed the Pope too. And as touching the Council of Florence Anno 1439. However the Doctrine of the Sacrament was offer'd to their consideration; yet no­thing of Transubstantiation was in the least Defined then.

This is the Truth of the Case, as far as I can find up­on the strictest Enquiry. By which it appears, not only what an Innovation the Mysterious Notion of Transubstantiation is, but also how this Innovation in­creas'd and swe;;'d about 120 years a go, at the Thir­teenth Session of the Council of Trent; when that which before had been the private Opinion of some fan­cyful Men, was adopted into the Church as a necessary Article of Faith, that by the Consecration of the Bread and Wine ther is a Conversion of their whole Substance into the Sub­stance of Christs Body and Blood, and thereupon they Define that whosoever should deny either of these Two Things; 1. That the whole Christ, his Body and Blood together with his Soul and Divinity is truly, really, and Substantially contain'd in the Eucharist: Or, Secondly that shall deny this wonderful Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into Christ's Body, and of the whole Substance of Wine into his Blood, the Species only of Bread and Wine re­maining, [Page 75] should be Anathematiz'd. Here were two New Opinions made Articles of Faith by a strange Synodi­cal Definition: The Corporal Presence, and Transub­stantiation. The First, as I have shew'd you, was start­ed by Paschasius Ratbertus in the 9th. Century; the o­ther was introduced in the Eleventh: Both very Late and Modern Imaginations in Comparison of the True Faith of the Church which was, by all that I can dis­cover, held without interruption for about the space of the first 800 years, and is still prosest by us of the Church of England, and by other Protestant Churches. The Two Opinions I speak of, were no sooner vended, but they were vigorously Oppos'd, as New Errours: And though by Arts and Violence, with the help of Time, they did spread in some Parts, yet still they were but private Mens Opinions: And though afterwards they came to be Countenanced by some that were in Authority, yet they were not Definitions agreed upon after a Synodical manner by any Council of unquestiona­ble Authority. Nay, though they were espoused by some fierce Popes, and for that sole Reason were main­tain'd by divers Doctors of the Church of Rome, con­trary to what others believed, yet at the same time those Doctors reckoned them not (especially that of Transubstantiation) among the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith. They were made so by the late pack't Council of Trent; who by so doing necessarily caused irreparable breaches in the Churches of Christ, and brought a visible Scandal upon Christianity it self by establishing such nauseous Opinions, as are enough to turn any Mens Stomachs, that will but hearken to their Senses and Reason.

I know the Council of Trent did deliver this Doctrine, as the Catholick Faith, which had always been believed [Page 76] by the Church (as they were pleased to say) and because they said it, the Romanists generally think themselves obliged to believe it. But the Novelty is Evident; and 'twere no impossible matter to shew, that even since the Council of Trent, several Great Men in the Church of Rome have not been pleased with it. Mr. Alixius mentions Two besides the now living Author of the late Learned Treatise of Transubstantiation, viz. Pe­trus de Marca, and Barnes a Benedictine, who held that Transubstantiation is not now an Article of Faith. Alix. ubisupr. pag. 80. Nay, to be free with you, the present Romanists are so troubled with such intricate and inseparable difficul­ties throughout the whole point, that I am tempted to believe many of them secretly wish it had been o­therwise defined: But now it is done, they will not Retract for fear of losing the Credit of Infallibility, which supports all.

Sir, I promised you in the beginning of this Letter to take notice of what hath been said upon this Point in some late Pamphlets; and the Task will be the less, because the Learned Author of the Veteres Vindicati has been before hand with me, who have been forced to wait till this Point fell in my way, in that Histori­cal Account which I undertook in my First Letter. However I will not make this Swell, but desire your Patience till another time: Perhaps some brisk Gentle­man may afford me some New Work; and then I may Answer all under one.

In the mean time I have a request to you. My Second Letter you know about Images was quarrell'd with by one, to whom I gave a Civil Return, without receiving yet any sort of Reply, that I know of. 'Tis odds but he will be Quarrelling with this too, because it bears hard upon a Mighty Point of Contro­versie. [Page 77] Therefore if you chance to know him, be pleas'd to whisper him in the Ear, that if he will keep close to matter of Fact, and use Genuine Authors, and forbear Reproachful and Unhandsome Language, and Deal with me like a Scholar, he shall certainly find me a fair Adversary. But if he shall run out into things that are impertinent and quite out of the way, you may wish him to have a care, least some Honest Pro­testant Footman give him a Breathing. I am,